Knowledge of possession is essential to uphold trafficking charges; mere proximity without established awareness does not satisfy legal requirements.

[1] The appellant was indicted with two charges. The first charge was for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drug Act 1952 (the Act) and the second offence under s 6 of the Act of having in his possession dangerous drugs punishable under s 12(2). The charges against the appellant read as follows:

The first charge

Bahawa kamu pada 24 Julai 2005, jam lebih kurang 4.20 pagi, di hadapan Kedai Wah Seng Cold Storage, Jalan Tebrau Kim Teng Park di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Ta'zim, telah didapati mengedar dadah merbahaya iaitu 466.40 gram Cannabis, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Merbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama.

The second charge

Bahawa kamu pada 24 Julai 2005, jam lebih kurang 4.20 pagi, di hadapan Kedai Wah Seng Cold Storage, Jalan Tebrau Kim Teng Park di dalam daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Ta'zim, telah didapati mengedar dadah merbahaya iaitu 0.70 gram Cannabis, dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 6 Akta Dadah Merbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen dan Akta yang sama.

[2] The High Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him of both charges. For the first charge, he was sentenced to death whereas for the second charge, he was sentenced to one year imprisonment, with effect from the date of his arrest. The appellant then appealed to us against the decision of the High Court and we allowed the appeal against the first charge but not the second appeal.

[3] The brief facts of this appeal are as follows:

[4] On 24 July 2010, at about 3.10am acting on information received, Chief Inspector Zambri bin Razab (PW5) together with two other police personnel conducted surveillance at Jalan Tebrau Taman Kim Teng Park, Johor Bahru. At about 4.20am. PW5 saw a taxi bearing registration no. HJ 6648 enter the surveillance area and park next to the row of shops there. PW5 and his men saw the appellant getting out of the taxi and walking towards the row of shops. They then followed him. On reaching Kedai Wah Seng Cold Storage PW5 stopped the appellant and simultaneously introduced himself as a police officer The appellant was arrested and the police conducted a body search. In the appellant's left rear pocket PW5 found a small packet containing dried plant material suspected to be cannabis (P13) and a bunch of keys with a remote control attached to it. By using the key and the remote control, PW5 opened the door of the taxi and searched the taxi. Under the driver's seat, he found a plastic bag containing a compressed slab of plant material suspected to be cannabis (P9). PW5 found that P9 was wrapped with transparent plastic package on the outer layer and an aluminium foil on the inner layer, attached together with a yellow coloured cellotape.

[5] The Government Chemist, one Muhammad Yazid bin Ibrahim (PW1), analyzed the plant material viz. P13 and P9 and confirmed them to be cannabis as defined under s 2 of the Act. P9 found under the driver's seat weighed 466.40 grams and P13 weighing 0.70 grams.

[6] In the course of the trial, Zaharah binti Abdul Jalal (PW2), being the owner of the taxi, testified that she bought the taxi in 2002 but since then had rented it out to one Razali bin Omar (PW3) for a monthly rental of RM400. PW2 testified that she never used the taxi and did not have any knowledge of any person who used the taxi on that particular date. PW3 in his eviden