[46] The crux of the appellants' defence were grounded upon the issue of knowledge of the drugs in the trolley bags because the said bags were given to them by one Shohruh. The appellants' defence was said to be consistent with their cautioned statements, exhs D54, D55 and D56 which were given at the earliest available opportunity on 8 September 2010, that is, one day after their arrest. It is undeniable that the trial judge had failed to consider the contents of exhs D54, D55 and D56 in her written grounds of judgment. However, in exercising our appellate jurisdiction, we may in law rehear the case. We are empowered and also duty bound to carry out an examination exercise of exhs D54, D55 and D56. In the recent case of PP v. Azilah bin Hadri & Anor, [2015] 1 MLJ 617, on the respondent's complaint that the trial judge in a murder case had failed to consider the ingredient of common intention in His Lordship's grounds of judgment, the Federal Court had this to say:

"An appeal is a continuation of proceedings by way of rehearing and an Appeal Court may subject the evidence to a critical re-examination (Ahmad Najib bin Aris v. PP, [2009] 2 MLJ 613, Mohamad bin Deraman; [2011] 3 MLJ 2