The court underscored that knowledge of illicit substances is essential for possession and trafficking charges, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[1] On 6 February 2011, ASP Balachandran a/l Annamalai ("SP5") was on supervisory duty at the KLIA Arrival Hall, Level 3. At about 10 am 2 men were seen wandering around in suspicious manner. He spent about 5 minutes observing both of them.

[2] He then saw them coming towards the scanning machine with their bags, on their way out. After they had passed their bags through the scanning machine, SP5 then approached them and introduced himself as a police officer together with 3 other police personnel, to the 2 men. Then SP5 went on to check their passports. A body inspection was also done on the 2 men but nothing suspicious was found on them, neither in their bags.

[3] Upon instruction by SP5, both the men were brought to Hospital Serdang for X-ray examination. By this time, the 2 men were identified as Modjtaba Hosseinzadeh Majid ['Modjtaba'] and Hamid Hosseinzadeh Abdolhossein ['Hamid'].

[4] The X-ray examination was conducted by Siti Rohani Din ("SP6"), who testified that she saw images of unusual objects in the abdominal part of both men respectively. According to SP6, those objects ought not to exist there. A flushing out process was done on both men in order to determine what they were. As a result thereof, 60 capsules were excreted from Modjtaba's body, and another 80 capsules came out from Hamid's body.

[5] The said capsules were subsequently sent to the Chemistry Department for analysis. Based on the chemist analysis, as conducted by Suhana Ismail ("SP4"), it was certified that the 60 capsules found from Modjtaba's body had contained 259.4 grammes of methamphetamine whilst the 80 capsules from Hamid's body had weighed 343.5 grammes of methamphetamine, as well.

[6] Both men were then charged under s 39B(1)(a) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ("the Act"). Simply put, each of them was charged separately for an offence of trafficking in the dangerous drugs methamphetamine, which on conviction attracts the mandatory death penalty. They were tried together, but not pursuant to s 34 Penal Code, meaning that the prosecution would have to prove the charge against each of them separately. After a full hearing, the learned High COURT Judge had found each of them guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs as per the respective charge, as preferred against each of them.

[7] The charge against Modjtaba [the 1^st Appellant] had read as follows:

"Bahawa kamu antara 6 Februari 2011 jam lebih kurang 5.25 petang sehingga 06 Februari 2011 jam lebih kurang 9.00 malam, bertempat di tandas bilik no 28, Wad 6C, Hospital Serdang, di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 259.4 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

[8] The charge against Hamid [the 2^nd Appellant] had read as follows:

"Bahawa kamu antara 06 Februari 2011 jam lebih kurang 3.15 petang sehingga 7 Februari 2011 jam lebih kurang 8.41 malam, bertempat di tandas bilik no 28, Wad 6C, Hospital Serdang, di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 343.5 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama."

[9] Consequently, the learned High COURT Judge had sentenced both of them to the mandatory death penalty. Aggrieved by such decision, both Modjtaba and Hamid [the appellants] had since appe