Gopal Sri Ram, JCA delivering judgment:-

1. This is the Judgment of the Court.

2. The appellants before us were convicted of an offence contrary to section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act") read with section 34 of the Penal Code. They were sentenced to the mandatory capital punishment which it carries and they have now appealed against their conviction.

3. The facts relevant to these appeals are as follows. PW4 (Detective Sergeant Busra bin Abdul Kadir) on the instructions of his superiors acted as agent provocateur in relation to information which had been received in relation to the trafficking in dangerous drugs. On 6 September 1999 at about 2.00 p.m, PW4 received a phone call from the informer inviting him to a meeting at a coffee shop opposite Jubli Park. After having met, they proceeded to an Esso petrol station along Jalan Ampang. There, the informer agreed to arrange a meeting between PW4 and a person at the Zhu Yee Qing Restaurant which was opposite the petrol station in question. They then proceeded to the restaurant where the informer introduced PW4 to the first accused. A conversation ensued during which the informer left. It is in evidence that PW4 and the first accused concluded negotiations for the sale and purchase of 2 kg of cannabis at the price of RM1,800.00 per kg. According to PW4, the first accused asked for the purchase price to be shown and that he would then get the drugs across. Later, PW4 reported this matter to his superior who arranged for the sum of RM4,000.00 to be handed to PW4. Later still, PW4 and a team of police officers left for the restaurant in question. An ambush was laid. On arrival, PW4 saw the first accused waiting. The latter asked the former about the money. PW4 showed the first accused the money whereupon the first accused asked him to keep it while he made a call to his friend to bring the drugs. At that point the first accused made a telephone call on his mobile phone. There is no evidence as to the telephone number that he called or the person he spoke to. At this juncture it must be mentioned that after the telephone call was made, both PW4 and the first accused moved across to the Esso petrol station and waited there. It is in evidence that shortly later that a motorcar number PBW 9744 arrived at the scene. It was driven by the second accused. At that point, the first accused informed PW4 that the "barang" had arrived. On the first accused's invitation PW4 followed him to the car. PW4 then asked the second accused, "mana barang?" or "where is the thing?" The second accused responded by saying that it was in the car and pointed towards the vehicle. PW4 then went to the car, opened its left front door and saw a paper bag there. He inspected it and found it to contain 2 plastic bags: one was black and the other blue. Each bag contained a slab of compressed substance wrapped in transparent plastic. The first accused then asked PW4 for the money. PW4 asked the first accused to wait while he fetched it from his car. While walking away, PW4 gave the pre-arranged signal at which the police party waiting in ambush emerged. Both accused were arrested. The substances recovered from the bag in question were sent for chemical examination which showed it to be 1,925 grams of cannabis. Both accused were then charged for trafficking and were convicted. So much for the facts.

4. Before us, Mr. Gurbachan Singh of counsel for the second accused has argued that the prosecution had at the close of its case failed to establish the ingredients of a common intention on the part of his client. Learned counsel submitted that the only telling evidence against his client within the prosecution case was the exchange between PW4 and the second accused. To recount, PW4 had asked the second accused "mana barang?" and the second accused had responded by saying that it was in the car and pointed to the car in question. Learned counsel's argument is that the statements made by