The possession and knowledge of dangerous drugs can be inferred from proximity, and the prosecution must prove prima facie possession beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Nor Bee Ariffin JCA:

Introduction

[1] The appellant was charged for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The charge reads:

"Bahawa kamu pada 28 September 2016 jam lebih kurang 10.45 malam, bertempat di tempat letak kereta No 386, Jalan Permas 10/5, Taman Permas Jaya, di dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, di dalam Negeri Johor Darul Ta'zim telah didapati memperedarkan dadah berbahaya, iaitu sejumlah berat bersih 357.1 gram Methamphetamine dan dengan itu 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."

The Prosecution's Case

[2] On 28 September 2016 at around 10 pm, SP8 and 5 members of a police raiding party from the Narcotics Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, IPK Johor arrived in two cars at Jalan Permas 10/5, Taman Permas Jaya, Johor Bahru, Johor (place of incident), and conducted an observation on the area for about 45 minutes from a distance of around 20 to 30 feet.

[3] At around 10.45 pm, SP8 witnessed a Proton Wira car bearing registration No JFQ 8494 (the said car) driven by the appellant came to a stop in front of the Quan An Vietnam Nguyen Restaurant at 386, Jalan Permas 10/5, Taman Permas Jaya, Johor Bahru, Johor.

[4] SP8 and the raiding party then drove the vehicles they were in and blocked the car driven by the appellant. When SP8 introduced himself as a police officer, the appellant opened the door of the car and ran away but was apprehended at a distance of 10 feet after a struggle ensued.

[5] SP8 conducted a physical check on the appellant but found nothing incriminating. SP8 then brought the appellant to the said car to conduct an inspection.

[6] As a result of the inspection on the said car, a plastic bag with the word "Hokkaido" (Exhibit P6 (1)) was found on the front passenger seat. The said plastic bag was closed. SP8 opened the said plastic bag and found 5 transparent plastic packets (Exhibits P6(1) (A) - P6(1)(E)) each containing substances suspected to be "Syabu".

[7] After the suspected drugs were discovered, the appellant reacted aggressively and tried to flee again but was again successfully restrained by the police raiding party.

[8] Upon further examination of the said car, SP8 found three financial statements, two payment receipts and one access card (Exhibits P5(1)-5(6)) located on the dashboard of the said car. Also seized were a set of keys and a remote (P16(1)) in the ignition.

[9] SP8 seized all the exhibits and prepared a search list. The appellant was placed under arrest and brought to the Narcotics Unit, Criminal Investigation Department, IPK Johor for further action.

[10] The exhibits were duly handed over to SP9, the investigating officer, who then sent the exhibits to the Chemistry Department for analysis. Upon analysis of the drug exhibits by the Chemist, SP6, it was found to contain a total of 357.1 grams nett of Methamphetamine. SP6 confirmed that the drugs were dangerous drugs and listed in the First Schedule to the Dangerous Drug Act 1952 (Act 234). SP6's findings were also reflected in the Chemist Report (Exhibit P12).

Findings Of Trial Judge

[11] The prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the appellant. Firstly, the prosecution had proven the nature and weight of the dangerous drugs forming the subject matter of the charge against the appellant. There was no break in the chain of exhibits from the time impugned drugs were seized during the raid until the same drugs were produced in court at trial. Secondly, the appellant was in possession of the dangerous drugs. Thirdly, the appellant was trafficking in the drugs.

Possession

[12] The learned trial judge found that the appellant had actual possession of the dangerous drugs as opposed to presumed possession of the dangerous drugs. The learned trial Judge's reasons why he found that the appellant had the necessary possession and knowledge are as follows.

[13] The evidence showed that the appellant had been in possession of the said car for at least a mo