The accused was charged as follows:

That you on 9 April 1986, at about 11pm at the house No 108, Jalan 56/26, Taman Sri Rampai, Setapak, in the Federal Territory, Kuala Lumpur, did traffic in dangerous drugs to wit heroin weighing a total of 16.59g and that you have thereby committed an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Revised 1980) and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act.

In this case, the dangerous drugs were found in a double-storey terraced house at No 108, Jalan 56/26, Taman Sri Rampai, Setapak, Kuala Lumpur, on 9 April 1986 at about 11pm by a team of police headed by Inspector Nordin bin Abdul (PW3). The dangerous drugs were found:

(1) lying on the floor of the bathroom in the master bedroom in a plastic packet which the chemist (PW1) said contained on analysis 1.47g of heroin (P4);

(2) lying on the floor of the common bathroom a yellow plastic packet with the words 'Rakyat Super Store Sdn Bhd' written on it (P22) and inside this packet was a plastic packet which the chemist said contained on analysis 1.52g of heroin (P6);

(3) lying on the floor of the common bathroom also were 9 small plastic packets (P8 A–I) which the chemist said contained on analysis 12.13g of heroin (P9);

(4) lying on the floor at the entrance (muka pintu) of the second bedroom a plastic packet which the chemist said contained on analysis 1.47g of heroin (P12).

However, upon the evidence adduced in court, I find that the prosecution's evidence falls short of a prima facie case at the end of the prosecution's case. There are several aspects of the evidence given by the prosecution's witnesses which taken individually and cumulatively raised a real doubt in my mind.

To begin with, the evidence adduced by the investigating officer of the case, Inspector (now ASP) Baktiar bin Bustami (PW7), was far from satisfactory. In point of fact, his testimony shows not only the cavalier manner in which the incriminating items — which forms the material particulars of the charge — were handled but also the informal and easy manner by which he deposed to the facts of the case which leaves in my mind the shoddy investigation of the case that would bear close scrutiny:

(1) he testified that he received one plastic packet containing 58 empty plastic packets; whereas in his testimony, PW3 — the leader of the raiding party — said that he recovered one plastic packet (P24) containing 50 empty plastic packets (P25 1–50) and that he separately recovered eight empty plastic packets (P25 A-H);

(2) he testified that he sent two weighing scales (P14 and P17) to the chemist on 14 April 1986 at about 3pm; whereas the chemist (PW1) in his testimony said that he received P14 and P17 on 14 April 1986 at 11.10am;

(3) he testified that the weighing scale (P17) in the yellow receptacle (P16) was put in envelope A and the weighing scale (P14) in the blue receptacle (P13) was put in envelope B; whereas the chemist (PW1) in his testimony said that he found the weighing scale (P17) in the yellow receptacle (P16) was in envelope B and the weighing scale (P14) in the blue receptacle (P13) was in envelope A;

(4) he testified that after receiving all the exhibits in envelopes E, F, G, J, A and B from the chemist, he put them in a steel safe in the CAD office in Jalan Kia Peng, Kuala Lumpur, and locked the safe and gave the key to the steel safe to his 'Pegawai Turus' who, he said, was his superior. It must be inferred and the inference is correct that the moment he handed the key to the safe to this 'Pegawai Turus', he immediately lost control and custody of the incriminating exhibits in envelopes E, F, G, J, A and B as the investigating officer of the case. His explanation was that his superior's safe was stronger than the one he had. One must remember it makes no difference as both safes were located inside the CAD office and the keys to these safes were in the hands of senior police officers, and there is no doubt at all in my mind