(1) The charge preferred against the accused in this case is as follows:

Bahawa kamu pada 27 Januari 2001, jam lebih kurang 3.00 pagi di kedai

makan M Rozi Tom Yam, Jalan Bandar Baru Sentul, dalam daerah Sentul,

dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya

iaitu 13,767.51g kanabis, oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu

kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh

dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama.

(2) On 26 January 2001 at about 11.15pm, Inspector Roslan bin Hussin (‘PW5 ’) led a party of police officers to a restaurant called M Rozi Tom Yam (‘the restaurant’) at Bandar Baru Sentul. There they arrested the accused on suspicion of being involved in drug activities. The restaurant was not searched. After the arrest of the accused, the police party arrested two other male Malays named Mohd Nazary bin Mohd Zaki and Jaafar bin Bebakar. They then returned to the police station. While there, PW5 was informed by Detective Sergeant Zaman that the accused wanted to tell him something. The accused was then brought to PW5 ’s room and questioned. As PW5 said:

Saya tanya ada lagi barang salah yang kamu simpan. OKT memberitahu ada

lagi di belakang kedai. Saya kemudiannya bertanya lagi, berapa banyak.

OKT memberitahu, tidak tahu.

(3) PW5 did not keep a record of the interrogation. He then informed Inspector Haslah bte Bachok (‘PW4 ’) about the information that he had received. As he said:

Selepas itu, saya telah memaklumkan kepada SP4 tentang maklumat yang

diterima untuk diambil tindakan. Maklumat yang saya beri kepada SP4

ialah OKT memberitahu ada menyimpan barang salah lagi di belakang

kedainya.

(4) In this regard PW4 said in her evidence:

Daripada maklumat yang diperolehi semasa saya menyoalsiasat OKT di

pejabat, OKT mengaku ada menyimpan dadah ganja di belakang kedai M Rozi

Tom Yam.

(5) PW4, PW5 and a police party then went to the restaurant together with the accused. On arrival there PW4, detectives Harbinder Singh (‘PW7 ’), Mansor and the accused went to the back of the restaurant. PW4 said that she could see a white box (‘exh P17’) at the back of the restaurant clearly. At the scene she questioned the accused. As she said:

Saya tanya kepada OKT adakah apa-apa barang salah dalam simpanan dan

kawalannya. OKT telah menunjukkan P17 kepada saya. OKT menunjukkan peti

itu dengan mulutnya. Saya juga ada bertanya pada suspek apa ada dalam

peti itu. OKT menjawab ‘ganja’.

(6) She did not keep a record of the interrogation. But it was supported by the evidence of PW7 who said:

Inspektor Haslah telah tanya beberapa soalan iaitu, adakah apa-apa

barang salah dalam simpanan atau kawalan kamu. Tertuduh jawab, ada

dadah ganja. Kemudian Inspektor Haslah tanya, di mana. Tertuduh

menunjukkan ke arah satu peti warna putih dengan isyarat mulut.

(7) PW7 said that he could see exh P17 on arrival at the scene and it was not hidden. PW4 then went towards exh P17 and opened it. She recovered from it, two plastic packets suspected to be cannabis. The seized items were sent to Halimah bte Abdul Karim (‘PW1 ’), a chemist attached to the Chemistry Department, Kuala Lumpur. She found them to contain 13,767.51g of cannabis. Musliha bte Alias (‘PW6 ’) identified the accused as the owner of the restaurant. That in substance is the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the close of its case.

(8) The case for the prosecution thus rested on evidence of information admissible under s 27 (‘s 27’) of the Evidence Act 1950 (‘the Act’). The submission advanced by both parties centred essentially on the following issues:

(a) absence of a record of the information;

(b) the proper information that is admissible;

(c) the significance of the question in response to which the accused gave

the information; and

(d) the evidentiar