The ruling confirms that actual possession and knowledge of drugs can be inferred from circumstantial evidence in trafficking cases.

[24] With respect, we found the cases cited by learned counsel not relevant to the instant appeal and we found no merits in the submission of learned counsel. The learned trial judge clearly had made an affirmative finding that the appellant was in actual possession of the drugs. This can be seen from the following para of the grounds of judgment (Appeal Record Vol 1: pp 8-11):

"19. Bagi membuktikan Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan terhadap dadah tersebut, keterangan SP8 adalah relevan. SP8 menyatakan dia melihat Tertuduh adalah orang yang membawa beg P8. Apabila imbasan dibuat dan didapati adanya imej yang mencurigakan berwarna hijau di dalam beg P8, SP8 mengarahkan Tertuduh membawa beg tersebut ke kaunter pemeriksaan. Tertuduh membuka beg tersebut melalui kunci kombinasi. Terdapat tag bagasi atas nama Tertuduh yang masih terlekat di beg tersebut (tag bagasi dikemukakan sebagai eksibit P21). Mahkamah mendapati dadah tersebut telah disembunyikan dengan rapi. Dadah tersebut tidak dapat dilihat sekiranya bingkaian gambar tersebut tidak dikeluarkan. Berdasarkan kepada fakta-fakta ini, ianya jelas menunjukkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan ekslusif terhadap beg P8 yang mengandungi bingkaian-bingkaian gambar yang mana di dalamnya mengandungi dadah berbahaya.

17. Isu seterusnya ialah sama ada Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah tersebut....

18....

19. Keterangan menunjukkan dadah tersebut dibawa masuk oleh Tertuduh dari India ke Kuala Lumpur iaitu dengan cara menyembunyikan di dalam bingkaian-bingkaian gambar dengan memasukkannya ke dalam beg P8 bagi mengelak daripada dikesan oleh pihak berkuasa. Keterangan menunjukkan dadah-dadah ini disimpan dengan rapi sehinggakan jika dilihat secara mata kasar dan sekali imbas sahaja tidak mungkin dapat diketahui terdapat dadah di dalam bingkaian-bingkaian gambar tersebut. Saya mendapati cara bagaimana dadah disembunyikan dengan rapi di dalam beg P8, ianya menunjukkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai kewujudan dadah di dalam beg P8 sebagaimana diputuskan dalam kes Teh Hock Leong v. PP , [2010] 1 MLJ 741 ......".

[25] We disagreed with learned counsel that at the end of the prosecution's case, the learned trial judge did not undertake a maximum evaluation of the evidence. We found that His Lordship had considered all the issues raised by learned counsel and in particular, the challenge made by the defence on the identity of the exhibits where he found the challenge devoid of any merit. We found no reason to depart from the finding of the learned trial judge.

[26] There was clear evidence that SP5 analysed the substance in 6 plastic packets marked A2(1), A3(1), A4(1), A5(1), A6(1) and A7(1). The markings A2(1) until A7(1) were done by SP8 where SP8 had also put his signature and date on the plastic packets and the wooden frames (exhs P26-P31). These markings can be seen at the photographs (Appeal Record Vol 5: p 421). The plastic packets A2(1)-A7(1) were produced in Court and were positively identified by SP5 and SP8 (exhs P15 - P20). Although SP9 himself made no markings on the exhibits, SP5 confirmed that she received the plastic packets A2(1)-A7(1) in a box marked HH sent by SP9. This evidence tallied with the evidence of SP9 who stated that he put all the plastic packets marked A2(1)-A7(1) in a box marked HH. In the circumstances, we agreed with the learned trial judge that the identity of the drug exhibits had not been compromised and that there was no break in the chain of the exhibits.