The prosecution failed to prove possession of drugs beyond reasonable doubt due to significant evidence discrepancies regarding the chain of custody and conflicting witness testimonies.

[1] The accused faced three charges before me, of trafficking in 4000.26 grams of cannabis and being in possession of 206.07 grams of ketamine as well as 7.66 grams of nimetazepam. These are offences under s 39B(1)(a) and s 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act), respectively. He was alleged to have committed the offences on 15 August 2010 at about 12.30 pm at his rented room (room B) in a bungalow situated at Lorong Ketitir 1B4, Jalan Batu Kawa, Kuching.

Discovery Of The Drugs

[2] When they raided the accused's room at that material time, the police in this case acted on information they received that drugs were kept in the said room. It must first be mentioned that from the photographs taken of the premises, the room of the accused was at the ground floor of the two storey bungalow.

[3] The raiding team in this case was led by Chief Inspector Azman bin Ismail (PW5) and it comprised Detective Sergeant Jintu ak Ranggai (PW6), Detective Corporal Stap ak Angi, Detective Corporal Jonathan Amat, Detective Tang Poh Loong and Detective Constable Mumtaz bin Ismail (PW7).

[4] When they all arrived at the crime scene, Detective Sergeant Jintu knocked on the door. When it was opened by the accused, Chief Inspector Azman said he asked the accused (after identifying himself as a police officer) whether he kept any drugs in the room. The accused allegedly nodded his head. The accused then proceeded to open a three tiered cabinet (ex P15) and from the bottom tier he produced a small brown box (ex P16). Chief Inspector Azman said he then read the caution under s 37A(1)(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 to the accused in Bahasa Malaysia which the latter said he understood. It must be noted that just before Chief Inspector Azman gave evidence the accused told the court that he understood Bahasa Malaysia and did not require the evidence to be interpreted to him in Bahasa Malaysia (see p 36 of the Notes of Proceedings). However after Chief Inspector Azman mentioned that he read the caution to the accused in Bahasa Malaysia, his counsel, Mr Shankar Ram immediately told the court that his client needed a Chinese interpreter and the accused added, when the recorded evidence of Chief Inspector Azman's was interpreted to him that he did not quite understand the evidence given by the Chief Inspector. Be that as it may, the question of whether the caution was properly administered and understood by the accused is not crucial because of the discrepancies in the evidence of the raiding officers which will be discussed presently.

[5] Continuing now with the evidence of Chief Inspector Azman, the content of the brown box yielded eight slabs of compressed dried leaves, all wrapped in Chinese newspaper and another slab wrapped with transparent plastic which upon analysis by the chemist were confirmed to be cannabis. It also contained five small plastic packets of crystalline substance in a pink plastic packet and one hundred and twenty-five aluminum strips marked "Erimin 5" with each strip containing ten pills. A red plastic containing a plastic packet of crystalline substance was also taken out from the box. Subsequent analysis by the chemist found the crystalline substance to be ketamine and the pills to be nimetazepam.

[6] The accused also produced two additional slabs of cannabis wrapped in aluminum foil from the bottom tier of the cabinet. When asked if he kept more drugs, the accused took a brown checked