Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the administration of caution and exclusive possession for drug charges.

[1] The Accused, Tiong Wee Kiet was charged with 4 charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ( DDA ).

[2] The 1st and the 2nd charges are for trafficking in a dangerous drug, to wit 73.02 grams of 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and 189.6 grams of Ketamine, respectively. Both of these offences are under s 39B(1)(a) of the DDA and carry the mandatory death sentence under s 39B(2) of the same.

[3] The 3rd charge is for possession of a dangerous drug, to wit 12.38 grams of Methamphetamine which is an offence under s 12(2) of the Act and punishable under s 39A(1)(r) of the same.

[4] The 4th charge is for possession of a dangerous drug, to wit 9.8 grams of Nimetazepam which is an offence under s 12(2) of the Act and punishable under s 12(3) of the same.

[5] These 4 offences were alleged to have been committed in a room at a house bearing the address at No 3B, Lorong Lada 14A, Sibu, Sarawak on 10 December 2014 at about 8.10 p.m.

[6] At the end of the prosecution's case, the learned trial Judge ruled that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the Accused on all 4 charges. The Accused was ordered to enter his defence. The Accused elected to give evidence under oath and called one other witness to support his case. At the conclusion of the Defence's case, the learned trial Judge found that the Defence had raised reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case and acquitted and discharged the Accused on all the charges.

[7] The Prosecution appealed on the order of acquittal and discharge of the Accused, which is the appeal before us.

[8] We have perused the Records of Appeal and heard submissions from both parties. We find no merits in the Appeal. Unanimously, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the learned trial Judge in the acquittal and discharge of the Accused. Herein are our grounds for doing so.