Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya) (delivering the judgment of the Court):

A mixed bag of dangerous drugs to wit, 1,647g of cannabis, 683.86g of morphine and 933.21g of heroin was found in four boxes. The dangerous drugs, were in sufficient quantities as to lead to the inference as a matter of commonsense of trafficking in dangerous drugs against anyone found to have in his custody or under his control the boxes containing the said drugs as would lead to the inference of possession thereof, under s. 37(d), and bring the offence under the more serious category under s. 39B(1)(a), for which the penalty is death or sentence for life.

The question in this appeal was whether the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence had cast any doubt on the case for the prosecution that the appellant had such custody control or possession. The four boxes were carried in a bus which entered Malaysia at Changloon. The bus had come from Haadyai and carried the appellant as a passenger and visitor. It had to stop at the Immigration and Customs check points at Changloon, the border town. Unfortunately for the appellant and unknown to him, an order had been issued for his detention. At the Immigration Office, he was told he would not be allowed to proceed in the bus and he had therefore to unload his luggage. He held his brief case and he had to return to the bus to recover his other luggage. He was the only one detained and therefore the only one with reason to unload. What was unloaded was one other bag and the four boxes. The appellant did not dispute that the bag was his but strenuously throughout his trial denied any connection with the four boxes.

The prosecution evidence traced the loading of the four boxes in Haadyai to their detention at Changloon. Evidence was adduced that the appellant had to pay excess fare for the bulky boxes and that he was the one who had brought the boxes along for transport. Part of the evidence consisted of a deposition at the Preliminary Enquiry of a witness who could now not be traced. The deposition was admitted over the protest of Counsel for the appellant. We are however fully satisfied that sufficient evidence was adduced to justify the Court's admission of the deposition under s. 32 of the Evidence Act. Evidence was also adduced that at Changloon the appellant was the active party in the unloading and it was he who at the request of the customs opened the boxes. The boxes were found to contain mounted Siamese face masks but the dangerous drugs which were subsequently found to be hidden inside the masks were not discovered until later in Kuala Lumpur, again in the presence of the appellant. In the meantime the boxes remained in the custody of Chief Inspector Yeoh.

Now this evidence, if accepted and believed, is clearly sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the appellant. The High Court at Alor Star accepted it and called on the defence. The defence was, in effect, a simple denial of the evidence connecting the appellant with the four boxes. We cannot see any plausible ground for saying that the four boxes were not his. In the circumstances of the prosecution evidence, the High Court came, in our view, to the correct conclusion that this denial did not cast a doubt on the prosecution case against the appellant.

We have read the record with some care and we have listened to what Counsel for the appellant and the appellant himself have said at the appeal before us. We have however not heard a single good and sufficient reason for allowing the appeal.

The enormity of the crime, and the seriousness of the view taken by this Court in sentencing drug traffickers need no further discussion. There is no occasion to repeat what we said inLoh Hock Seng & Anor. V. Public Prosecutor . There is no reason to depart from the approach summarised in that judgment as that appropriate when considering the sentencing of drug traffickers.

The appellant is lucky to escape with l