JUDGMENT

Jeffrey Tan JCA:

[1] The amended charge against the appellant was that he, at 9pm on 21 January 2001 in house No. 90-05-02, Flat Putra Ria, Jalan Bangsar, in the district of Brickfields in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, committed the act of trafficking in a dangerous drug, to wit 2,056.3 grams of cannabis, an offence punishable under s. 39B(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA) with death.

[2] At the close of the prosecution case, the learned trial judge held that a prima facie case had been made out. The appellant was ordered to enter upon his defence. At the end of the entire case, the learned trial judge held that there was no doubt as to guilt, and convicted the appellant. Against that decision, the appellant appealed.

[3] The facts of the case could be summarised as follows. On the night of 21 January 2001, police were out on crime prevention duties in the vicinity of Flat Putra Ria, Jalan Bangsar. There, SP4 (Chief Inspector Benedickson Avina Anak Jekes) arrested the appellant. SP4 handed the appellant to SP5 (Chief Inspector R. Azizan Ibrahim). Also there, at the car park, SP5 first read the caution under s. 37A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to the appellant, and then questioned the appellant. SP5 asked the Appellant for his address. The appellant gave his address as 90-05-02, Flat Putra Ria (flat). The appellant informed SP5 that his sister (SP9) and her husband (SP10) also lived in the flat. The appellant surrendered two keys to SP5. SP5 asked the appellant whether he had any incriminating articles. The appellant answered in the affirmative. "Saya juga ada tanya kepada OKT samada menyimpan apa-apa barang salah, lalu OKT menjawab ada" (see p. 21 of the notes of proceedings). The appellant then led the police party to the flat. The appellant opened the grille door with one of the keys that he had earlier handed to SP5. SP5 and the police party together with the appellant in handcuffs entered the flat. From Room E2, the appellant took out a "Microsoft Office 97" bag and handed it to SP5 - "Selepas dipandu arah oleh OKT yang dalam keadaan bergari, ke dalam bilik tidur itu OKT telah mengambil satu beg hitam jenama Microsoft Office 97, lalu OKT serah kepada saya dengan disaksikan polis-polis yang hadir" (see 21NP). That bag contained a compressed block of cannabis and two clear plastic packets. The appellant then led the police party to the guest hall. There, the appellant took out a red plastic packet from a drawer of the display cupboard in the hall. In that red plastic packet was a newspaper package. SP5 again read the s. 37A caution to the appellant. SP5 asked the appellant about the contents of that newspaper package. Incidentally, all evidence of the oral statements of the appellant after the 2^nd caution, that is, when the appellant was in the flat, was withdrawn by the prosecution (see 66NP).

[4] The prosecution also adduced evidence from SP9 that SP9 and SP10 also lived in the flat, that the appellant had his clothes in Room E2, that guests of the family and friends of the appellant had stayed in that room and in another unoccupied room in the flat, and that SP9 and SP10 were in Ipoh on the material date, and from SP8 (Chief Inspector Mohd Slpiyang) that he heard the appellant saying to SP5 at the car park that there were 2 kilograms of cannabis in the flat.

[5] In relation to those drug exhibits, a government chemist (SP3 - Nazaruddin bin Mohamed) testified that the compressed block and two clear plastic packets from the Microsoft Office 97 bag and the newspaper package contained a total of 2,056.3 grams of cannabis.

[6] The above summary would not be complete without a further word on the all important oral statements of the appellant at the car park. SP5 testified that he recorded those oral statements on a piece of paper. That piece of paper was admitted as exh. P29, apparently, without any objection by the defence. In effect, P29 would substantiate the fact of the alleged oral statements of th