The identity of drug exhibits in trafficking cases must be substantiated by a coherent chain of custody, and mere discrepancies in weight do not automatically undermine the prosecution's case.

[1] The appellant was charged with the offence of trafficking in 2,831 grams of heroin, a dangerous drug under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (DDA). He was arrested at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) on 18 June 2008 at 5.45pm.

[2] On 29 September 2011 the High Court at Shah Alam found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to death.

[3] The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 6 March 2012.

[4] The appellant is now appealing to this Court on two grounds. However, at the commencement of the hearing his learned counsel indicated to the Court that he would only deal with one issue, namely, the identity of the drug as alleged in the charge preferred against the appellant. He relied on the decision of this Court in Zaifull Muhammad v. PP & Another Appeal, [2013] 2 MLJ 348 ('Zaifull case') in preference to the recent decision of this Court in Hasbala Mohd Sarong v. PP ; [2013] 6 MLJ 636 ; [2013] 6 CLJ 945 ; [2013] 6 AMR 324 ('Hasbala case').

[5] This judgment is therefore focused on whether the courts below had indeed misdirected themselves on the law in view of the decision in Zaifull case.

Background Facts

[6] In summary it was the case for the prosecution that on 18 June 2008 SP1 (ASP Azhar Hashim) and his police party were on duty at carousel "J" of the arrival hall of the KLIA. They were there to observe passengers arriving on flight MH741 from Yangon, Myanmar. SP1 saw the appellant who had collected a black bag from the carousel and was dragging it towards the customs examination counter. SP1 stopped the appellant and instructed him to place the bag through the scanning machine. The scan revealed a dark coloured image at the base of the bag. As such SP1 requested the appellant to place the bag on the examination counter. The bag was zipped but not locked. On examination of the contents SP1 found inside the bag some clothing and another empty bag. The appellant was taken to the Narcotic office where a thorough examination was carried out.

[7] At the Narcotic office SP1 used a knife to cut open the side of the bag. There was a grey piece of hard paper. Upon cutting the surrounding of the hard paper SP1 found a yellow cello-taped package. SP1 went on to cut open the package and in it he found white powdery substance. On chemical analysis the white powdery substance was found to be heroin, a scheduled dangerous drug as defined under the DDA. Hence the appellant was charged with trafficking in a dangerous drug under s 39B(1)(a) of the .

[8] The prosecution also adduced in evidence that the clothing found inside the bag fitted the appellant and the DNA found on it matched the appellant's DNA.

[9] Upon maximum evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned trial judge found a prima facie case against the appellant.

[10] It was the finding of the learned trial judge, inter alia:

"Mahkamah menyedari bahawa terdapat perbedzaan jumlah berat kasar dadah yang dirampas dalam kes ini, masing-masingnya oleh SP1 (3,500 gram), SP3 (3703.8 gram), SP7 (3,505 gram dan SP9 (3,720 gram). Keterangan menunjukkan mereka menggunakan alat-alat timbang yang berbeza dan SP7 dan SP9 menyatakan alat timbang yang mereka gunakan adalah tidak dikaliberasi. Mahkamah berpuashati rantaian kawalan barang kes dadah ini tidak terputus langsung, malah bungkusannya (P57) dicam oleh semua mereka itu."

("The Court recognises that t