Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] (delivering the judgment of the court). The appellant was convicted on two charges under s 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

[2] The facts about which there is no serious dispute that led to his conviction are as follows. On 3 September 1997, at about 5.30pm, a police raid was conducted at flat No 2-1F, Jalan Gandek, off Jalan Sungei Besi. There were three males in that flat. The appellant was one of them. PW7, who led the raid assisted by his fellow officers, conducted a search of the appellant's person. Two keys were recovered. The appellant then led the police party to another flat No 2-1B. The police officers gained access into that flat by using one of the keys to open the padlock that secured the collapsible grill at the entrance to the flat. That flat had six rooms. The police party and the appellant proceeded to one of these rooms. The police used the second key to gain access to that room by unlocking a padlock that fastened it. In the room they recovered two substances which on chemical analysis proved to be 156 grammes of a mixture of heroin and monoactylmorphines as well as 335 grammes of cannabis.

[3] The search also yielded a weighing machine, a T-shirt and a pair of jeans, all of which the police took into their custody. There were two other items in the room. The police did not take these into custody. These were a television set and a mattress. Apart from the foregoing, no other items belonging to the appellant were found in that room. The appellant was then taken into custody and formally charged. Later the police made four visits to the scene to take photographs. On the third visit they gained access into the room and found the mattress and television set in place. No photographs were taken because they did not have a police photographer with them at the time.

[4] On the fourth occasion, photos were taken. But there is one matter of significance. It is that the bed and television set were no longer there.

[5] At the appellant's trial, evidence was led with a view to prove that the accused had exclusive occupation of the room in question. The learned trial judge concluded that the appellant did have exclusive occupation of the room in question based on four principal considerations. First the keys to flat 2-1B were found on the appellant person. Second, the accused had led the police party to the room in flat 2-1B in which the offending drugs were found. Third, because the defence had not suggested under cross-examination, to any of the prosecution witnesses that someone else had access to the room. Fourth, and last, because the evidence of the landlady, PW8, was to the effect that the appellant had rented the room in question.

[6] Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the salient features of the case for the prosecution and has argued that there are several unsatisfactory aspects and gaps in it. It is sufficient that we give prominence to only what we consider to be the salient points highlighted by counsel in his submission.

[7] The first of these relates to the room itself. As we observed a moment ago, the trial judge found as a fact that the police had gained access to the room in question. But what the finding overlooks is the evidence of PW8. She said that apart from the padlock that secured the door to the room, there was in place an automatic lock fastened to the door No explanation was given; and this is frankly conceded by the learned deputy who appears in this appeal; about this second lock on the door to the room. To put the point plainly, the prosecution failed to sufficiently show how the police party gained access to the room when it was secured with an automatic lock.

[8] The learned deputy however argued that this is not a significant fact. With respect, we do not agree. If the door was securely fastened and there were only two keys available, then it was surely for the prosecution to explain how access was gained into the room. The fact therefore that two k