The omission of statutory definitions in chemist reports can create reasonable doubt, impacting drug trafficking convictions.

(delivering judgment of the court): This was an appeal from the judgment of the High Court Kuala Lumpur on 6 April 1991 which convicted the appellant for trafficking in 236.07 grams of cannabis under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act) on 8 September 1988 at a roadblock at Jalan Robson, off Jalan Syed Putra, Kuala Lumpur. The appellant was sentenced to death under sub-s (2) of s 39B of the Act.

We heard the appeal on 13 July 1999 specially to consider whether the omission to state s 2 of the Act in the chemists evidence or in his report has excluded the probability that the substance he has analysed was cannabis (Indian Hemp), a drug listed in Part III of the First Schedule of the Act as a result of Shukri bin Mohamad v PP 1995 MarsdenLR 1927 .

Background

The prosecution evidence was as follows. On 8 September 1988 at about 2.15pm during the course of a routine roadblock at Jalan Robson, off Jalan Syed Putra, Kuala Lumpur, PC Kamarnor bin Abdullah (PW2) stopped the appellant and his pillion, one Periannan a/l Pichay who were on motorcycle BCN 5947. There were five other policemen at the scene. The appellant was asked for his driving licence which he could not produce. The appellant however produced his identity card (exh P4) from his wallet which he took out from his trouser pocket. The appellants name according to the identity card was ascertained to be Balakrishna a/l Thanimalal. While checking the road tax of the motorcycle, PW2 noticed a red plastic bag (exh P7) in the carrier-basket. He told the appellant to take the bag out and to open it. On the appellant opening the plastic bag, PW2 noticed a newspaper package (exh P8) inside P7. The appellant opened this package which had another newspaper package (exh P9). This latter package contained a number of rolls of yellow paper tied up in bundles (exhs P10A-Q) which were suspected to be cannabis. These exhibits were shown to PC Ahmad bin Mohd Saman and Corporal Hapidz bin Ahmad (PW3) in the presence of the appellant.

The appellant was told to rewrap the package and to place it back in the plastic bag. PW2 then arrested the appellant and Periannan on the instructions of PW3 who took possession of the plastic bag. The appellant and Periannan were taken to the Brickfields police station, where PW2 counted the bundles of rolls of suspected cannabis in the presence of the appellant and Periannan. There were 16 bundles of 50 rolls each and one bundle of 30 rolls, making a total of 830 of suspected cannabis. PW2 then lodged a police report.

At about 5.10pm on the same day, PW2 handed over the appellant, Periannan, and all the exhibits which he had seized, to Inspector Hassan Jalaludin bin Abdul Malik (PW7) of the Cawangan Anti Dadah, Contingent Police Headquarters, Kuala Lumpur, who later became the investigating officer of the case.

PW7 testified that he received the exhibits pertaining to the case from PW2 and kept them in safe custody. On 8 September 1988, he took the suspected cannabis to the Chemistry Department Petaling Jaya and handed it to the Government Chemist, En Cheong Meow Koon for analysis. He received the package back on 12 January 1989 with a copy of the chemists report (exh P19). On 5 February 1991, he served a copy of the report on the appellant.

The chemist, En Cheong Meow Koon, did not testify in court. However, his report (exh P19) under s 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the CPC) was tendered at the trial. It reads as follows:

I found in package A a plastic bag in which was a newspaper package

containing 830 paper rolls in 17 bundles each tied with a rubber band.

The 830 paper rolls contained a total of 236.07g (nett) of dried plant

material which on analysis, I found to be cannabis.

Cannabis is as defined in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 . During

analysis, all the above plant material had been removed from the paper

rolls and the balance after analysis was sealed in a