Ajaib Singh J:

[1] This was an appeal from the decision of the learned president of the sessions Court at Seremban. The appellant had pleaded guilty and had been convicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment on a charge of being in possession of eight lbs eight ozs of raw opium under s 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance 1952. The appeal was against sentence only.

[2] The facts of this case were that some customs officials acting on information had been looking out for a car No BAC 3200 on three consecutive days. On 12 March 1974, the fourth day, at about 5.30 pm this car was seen approaching the junction of Jalan Murray and Jalan Templer from the direction of Kuala Lumpur. Two customs officers followed this car on a motor scooter. The car proceeded along Jalan Murray and stopped and the appellant was seen getting out of this car and walking away. He had two bundles in his hands. On seeing the customs officers approaching him the appellant dropped the bundles and fled. The officers gave chase and the appellant was arrested about 50 yards away. The two bundles were sent to the chemistry department and it was confirmed that they contained eight lbs eight ozs of raw opium.

[3] The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge preferred against him under s 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance 1952, for being in possession of the raw opium and he also admitted the facts of the case as stated above without (as the learned president states in his grounds of decision) qualification, reservation, ambiguity or hesitation.

[4] In mitigation of sentence before the learned president the appellant prayed for leniency on the ground that he was 38 years of age and had a wife and five children to support and at the same time he was also receiving treatment for tuberculosis. (However, during the hearing of the appeal Mr Stanley Ponniah, learned Counsel for the appellant, informed the Court that the appellant was not in fact suffering from tuberculosis but from some other chest complaint). The appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The raw opium valued at about $2,400 was ordered to be confiscated.

[5] In his brief grounds of decision the learned president states that:

but for the quantity of opium found in accused's possession I tend to opine that the accused is either a supplier or pusher or trafficking and that severe punishment should generally speaking, be reserved to persons such as the accused who make a living rather than for the actual smoker. Possession of opium is a serious offence and which brings untold misery to an addict. In Lasoo & Anor v. Public Prosecutor, [1965] 1 MLJ 235 , where the learned Judge had this to say.' When a person is found to have possession of opium in such quantity as to show positively and convincingly that he is engaged in trafficking in such drug the proper sentence is a deterrent sentence. A fine can never be a deterrent sentence.' In view of the facts of the case, the gravity and prevalence of the offence of dangerous drugs I am of the opinion that one year imprisonment would be most reasonable and fair. In addition the imprisonment, I hope will deter others who may have a similar aspiration.

[6] In the case of Lasoo & Anor v. Public Prosecutor, [1965] 1 MLJ 235 the appellants had appealed against the sentences imposed upon them in the district Court at Sibu on charges of importing raw opium and possession of opium under s 4(1) and s 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Sarawak). They had pleaded guilty on the second charge and were found guilty and convicted after trial on the first charge. Each of the appellants was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the first charge of importing raw opium and 15 months' imprisonment on the second charge of possession of the opium. The report, however, does not disclose the quantity of opium involved in this case.

[7] In dismissing the appeal Lee Hun Hoe J C (as he then was) was in fact echoing the words of the Chief Justice of Singapore in t