Procedural non-compliance must not violate an accused's rights to a fair trial.

Introduction

[1] Noor Shariful Rizal Noor Zawawi, the appellant, was charged with an offence of self-administration or consumption a dangerous drug, to wit, methamphetamine under s 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act) read together with s 38B(1) of the same Act. The amended charge reads as follows:

The Amended Charge

"Bahawa kamu pada 23hb Jun 2014, jam lebih kurang 7.00 petang di Balai Polis Temerloh, di dalam Daerah Temerloh, di dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, telah didapati menggunakan dadah berbahaya jenis methamphetamine ke dalam tubuh badan kamu dengan cara menyalahi undang-undang. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan dibaca bersama s 38B(1) Akta yang sama."

Background Facts

[2] The background and material facts that culminate in this appeal are as follows:

[3] On 23 June 2014, at about 6.30 pm, Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik, Daerah Temerloh, ASP Woon Khoon Ming, PW1 and 7 of his men detained the appellant at the football field of a police housing area at Temerloh Jaya. The appellant was suspected to be involved in the abuse of drugs.

[4] After his detention, the appellant was taken to Temerloh Police Station where he was given the liberty to choose the bottle - one bottle only. He was directed by PW1 to give his urine sample in the said bottle for screening purposes. Having carried out the screening test, it was found to contain methamphetamine. The same bottle containing the balance of the appellant's urine sample was closed and sealed up by PW1. PW1 then gave the said bottle to the investigating officer, Insp Letter Lee, PW4, for onward transmission to the hospital for confirmation test.

[5] On 25 June 2014, PW4, handed over the urine sample to the Pathology Department, Kuala Lumpur Hospital for confirmation test. Having conducted the test, Pegawai Sains Kimia Hayat, Muhammad Nubli Mohd Shuhaimi, PW3, confirmed that the appellant's urine sample was found to contain methamphetamine. PW3 prepared his report "Laporan Ujian Pengesanan Dadah Dalam Air Kencing" and produced at the trial as Exh P9.

[6] At the close of the prosecution's case, the Magistrate found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case under s 15(1)(a) of the Act against the appellant. The appellant was called to enter his defence.

[7] Having explained the three options opened to him to put up his defence, the appellant chose to remain silent. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment commencing from the date of his arrest and also he was imposed by the Magistrate to undergo police supervision for a period of 2 years.

[8] Dissatisfied with the decision of the Magistrate, the appellant took up an appeal to the High Court at Temerloh. On hearing the appeal, learned Judicial Commissioner (JC) affirmed the decision of the Magistrate. Hence this appeal.

[9] As regards to the appellant's appeal before learned JC, the central issue was relating to the procedure of collecting urine sample of the appellant which was alleged to be in contravention of the "Perintah Tetap Ketua Polis Negara F103 (PTKPN F103)" or its English versi