The prosecution must provide witnesses offered to the defense; failure to do so and its resulting impact on the case can lead to acquittal.

[1] This is the judgment of this Court on an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who acquitted and discharged the accused at the end of the defence case.

Background

[2] The Respondent, Asnawi bin Yusuf, was charged under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for the offence of trafficking, to wit 28,666 grams of cannabis at Jalan Permas 10/10, Bandar Baru Permas Jaya in Johor Bahru on 14 March 2002.

[3] The Respondent pleaded not guilty and the trial proceeded at the High Court at Johor Bahru. The prosecution called seven witnesses and at the close of the prosecution's case, the learned High Court Judge found that a prima facie case had been made out and called the respondent to enter his defence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 . After the respondent had given his sworn evidence in Court, the learned High Court Judge decided that the respondent had raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and acquitted and discharged him on the charge of trafficking.

Facts Of The Case

[4] The essential facts of the case led by the prosecution and relevant to this appeal may be summarised as follows.

[5] One Detective Corporal Ramli bin Saad (SP3) from Bahagian Risikan Narkotik Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur was contacted on March 1st 2002 by an informer who wanted to introduce him to a supplier of cannabis in Johor Bahru. The following day SP3 went with Kpl. Abdul Rahim bin Kiran (SP6) to Johor Bahru where SP3 met the informer and an Indonesian supplier called "Awi", the respondent.

[6] A discussion ensued between SP3 and the respondent wherein the latter confirmed that he could supply 30 kilos of cannabis at a rate of RM1,000 per kilogram and promised to get in touch with SP3 once supply was available.

[7] SP3 and SP6 returned to Kuala Lumpur and briefed SP4, ASP Zubir bin Ayob on the discussion and negotiation. A few days later, the respondent contacted SP3 by telephone saying that the cannabis was available and was ready for collection. SP3 informed SP4 who instructed that an operation be carried out.

[8] This resulted in SP4 leading a police party to Johor Bahru. The members comprised of SP3, SP6, Chief Inspector Mohd Alpiyang bin Ali, D/Sjn Abd. Hamid bin Ujang, RF 114564 Rusli bin Johar, RF 118379 Mohd. Jaini bin Haji Othman and RF 115915 Mohd. Zin bin Pengcheng.

[9] On 13 March 2002 SP3 contacted the respondent and made arrangement to meet him at Restoran Sri Alam, Permas Jaya ("the said restaurant") at 8.00 p.m.. The respondent said that the supply was ready and SP3 said he would be collecting the 30 kilograms of cannabis near the said restaurant between 9.00 p.m. to 10.00 5 p.m. the next day.

[10] Briefing was held with the members of the police party involved in the operation and with SP3 and SP6 passing themselves out as the "purchasers of cannabis". A sum of RM30,000 was handed over to SP3 and SP6 as "flash role" to convince the respondent of the purchase. The next day at about 9.30 p.m. members of the police party took up their respective positions near the said restaurant.

[11] At about 10.00 p.m. the respondent arrived and sat down with SP3 in the said restaurant. He said that the supply was ready but he wanted to see the money first. SP3 brought him to the car where SP6 was seated and showed him the money which were in a bag. Thereafter the respondent left riding a motorcycle. SP3 returned to the said restaurant while SP6 drove the car to the back of the said restaurant.

[12] The respondent came back at 11.30 p.m. driving a white Proton Iswara bearing registration plate No. JCS 5739 and after parking his car he went to meet SP3 at the said restaurant. Both of them then proceede