[1] The appellant was charged with trafficking in more than 23 kilograms of cannabis, a dangerous drug listed in the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the DDA ") and the charge against her was as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 21 Januari 2012, lebih kurang jam 8.45 malam, bertempat di kawasan terminal bas Shahab Perdana, Lebuhraya Sultanah Sambungan Alor Setar, di dalam Daerah Kota Setar, di dalam Negeri Kedah Darul Aman, telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu cannabis seberat 23,123.00 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

[2] She was found guilty after a full trial and sentenced to death. This is her appeal against conviction and sentence. There were 19 grounds of appeal but at the hearing learned counsel for the appellant focused on the following two grounds, viz:

(1) There is a doubt as to the date and time the appellant was arrested.

(2) There was no proper evaluation of the defence.

[3] The facts in brief are as follows. On 21 January 2012, Inspector Samsulalan Samsudin (SP2) received information of a drug trafficking activity that was to take place in the vicinity of Shahab Perdana Bus Station, Alor Setar. He gathered his officers to carry out an operation to catch the suspect.

[4] After a briefing, SP2 and his team proceeded to the bus station and arrived there at about 8.15 pm. Half an hour into the operation, SP2 saw the appellant walking from the direction of the bus lane heading towards the five foot way of the bus station. She was carrying a black bag (P34) on her right shoulder and another black bag (P35) in her right hand.

[5] SP2 detained the appellant and instructed a woman officer to carry out a body check on her. Nothing incriminating was found on the appellant. SP2 then asked the appellant to open the two bags but she refused. When SP2 instructed a member of the raiding party to open the bags, the appellant said "don't'. SP2 then proceeded to check the two bags. Inside P34 he found 19 slabs of dried leaves and inside P35 he found another 5 slabs of the same stuff.

[6] These 24 slabs of dried leaves were sent for analysis and were confirmed by the Chemist Faezmaziana binti Napiah (SP1) to be cannabis weighing 23,123.00 grams. Possession without lawful authority of 200 grams or more of this type of drug activates the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) of the DDA . In PP v. Zulkifli Arshad , [2011] 1 MLJ 599 the Federal Court held that where evidence of actual possession has been established, it is incumbent on the Court to invoke the presumption.

[7] On these primary facts and by operation of the presumption under s 37(da), the learned trial judge found that a prima facie case of trafficking had been established against the appellant. The learned judge rejected counsel for the appellant's submission that the prosecution failed to prove possession. It was his firm finding that possession had been proved through the testimonies of SP2, SP3 and SP4, whom he found to be credible witnesses.

[8] What counsel's submission amounts to is that the appellant was not even in custody or control of the two bags, let alone to have knowledge of their contents. The appellant's case was that she was not carrying any bag at all at the time of her arrest. This version of the defence case was put t