JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The respondent was convicted at the High Court at Johor Bahru of the offence under section 39B (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 of trafficking in 3,121 grammes of cannabis, a dangerous drug, and was sentenced to death under section 39B (2) of the Act. On his appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and sentence and substituted them with a conviction for the offence of possession of the drugs under section 6 of the Act and a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment and whipping of 10 strokes under section 39A (2). The Public Prosecutor now appeals to this court for confirmation of the conviction and sentence of the High Court.

2. The respondent was arrested in a raid on 17 September 1997 at about 10.15 p.m. by a party of customs officers, led by Raja Abdul Aziz (PW4), on house No. 35, Jalan Sekoi, Bandar Baru Uda, Johor Bahru. The raid was actually on an extension of the main house. The extension had its own single entrance and was rented by the respondent from the owner of the main house. The respondent occupied one room of the extension. There was another room adjoining the respondent's room. Whenever we make mention of the house after his, we mean the extension.

3. At the time of the raid the respondent was in his room with two other persons, who were to be witnesses for the prosecution. They were Rahmat bin Md. Munasir (PW7) and Najib bin Mohd. Amin (PW8). From outside the house Raja Aziz saw them smoking what he suspected to be cannabis. Rahmat and Najib confirmed in evidence that the three of them were smoking cannabis. According to Najib, he had gone to the house to collect from the respondent money for a handphone that he had sold to the respondent, and to buy a packet of cannabis, which he did for RM10.00.

4. After Raja Aziz was admitted into the house, the respondent made several statements in answer to certain questions from Raja Aziz. A trial-within-a-trial was conducted to determine the admissibility of these statements, which resulted in a finding of admissibility. The facts that we are going to relate are from Raja Aziz's examination in the trial proper.

5. It was the respondent who came and opened the door of the house in response to Raja Aziz's knocks. In the hall or guest area, Raja Aziz asked the respondent a question, which was duly answered. Then Rahmat and Najib came out of the respondent's room to the hall or guest area. A body search was conducted on the three, and a packet of cannabis was found in a sling-bag which Najib had on him. Raja Aziz directed the respondent to go to his room which Raja Aziz intended to examine. On the floor of the room Raja Aziz noticed a plastic film case containing what proved to be cannabis. Rahmat and Najib were to testify that the cannabis that they and the respondent had been smoking was from that film case. After the finding of the film case, Raja Aziz administered to the respondent the caution under section 37A of the Act, and the respondent was handcuffed.

6. Raja Aziz then asked the respondent the whereabouts of any other cannabis. At first the respondent was silent, but when asked again he said that it was under the bed (ada di bawah katil). Raja Aziz saw several bags under the bed, and understood that the respondent meant it was in one or more of the bags. The respondent's handcuffs were then removed to enable him to bring out the bags that he meant. The respondent brought out three bags from under the bed, which Raja Aziz examined. In a red Umbro bag, among the respondent's personal effects, was half a slab of what proved to be cannabis. In a Slazenger bag, among the respondent's personal effects, was a slab of what proved to be cannabis. In a green bag were two slabs of what proved to be cannabis.

7. The total weight of cannabis in the three and a half slabs and in the plastic film case was 3,121 grammes, the amount in the charge, the amount in the film case being only 8.2685 grammes.

8. After the discovery of the drugs in the