Hj. Abdul Hamid Bin Hj. Omar LP:

I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of the Court issued by my learned brother, Edgar Joseph Jr., who in that judgment clearly sets out the brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of this appeal. I am entirely in agreement with the views expressed by him on the question of what constitutes a prima facie case. There is, however, one other question of law raised by Encik Karpal Singh, Counsel for the appellant, namely, that of expert evidence of the chemist.

It is argued by Encik Karpal Singh that -

(a) the chemist's evidence should not be accepted on its face value; and (b) the evidence on the expertise of the chemist should come first, meaning that there should be evidence before the Court to show the chemist's competency to give evidence as expert.

It is appropriate at the outset to determine whether the evidence of a chemist on the identity of a drug constitutes evidence of fact or opinion and to consider the attendant issue governing the admissibility of such evidence. If the chemist's evidence is factual, then it follows that he is competent to give evidence like any other witness and by the same token the law on