Sangau Gunting J:

Background Facts

[1] The Minister concerned having been, inter alia, satisfied with respect to Kii Sie Hoong (appellant) that he "has been or is associated with any activity relating to or involving the trafficking in dangerous drugs," the appellant was on 29 June 2003 arrested and thereafter detained under s. 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985. Later on the same day (29 June 2003), the following properties were seized under s. 25 of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 ("the Act"): one Toyota Land Cruiser (QKS 3133), ONE Mazda GTS (QSF 8285), cash totaling RM1,200, one NOKIA 7250 hand phone, one bank account book and four ATM cards.

[2] In response to a notice (Borang 17) issued under s. 25(2) of the Act, the appellant through his advocates wrote a letter dated 28 July 2003 claiming ownership of all the afore-mentioned properties. Hence, the Deputy Public Prosecutor's reference of the appellant's claim (Sessions Court Case No. 64-03-2004) to the Sessions Court Judge under s. 32(3) of the same Act. After hearing evidence of the claimant/appellant and the submissions of both parties, in a deferred ruling the Sessions Court Judge ordered forfeiture of all the seized properties, except the bank account book and the four ATM cards. Dissatisfied, the appellant lodged a notice of appeal against the said ruling.

[3] Except for the last two items, concerning which at the commencement of the Sessions Court hearing both parties to the claim agreed to disregard, all the properties mentioned in para. 1 above form the subject matter of the appellant's claim in the instant case.

[4]Section 25(1) of the Act contemplates of "Any movable property which a senior police officer reasonably suspects to be the subject matter of an offence under this Act, or which has been used for the commission of that offence, or illegal property ..." The order of forfeiture made by the learned Sessions Judge would appear to be essentially based on her findings as follows:

a) That the appellant/claimant "was involved in trafficking of dangerous drugs ie selling ecstasy pills ...";

b) "(T)hat money earned from dangerous drugs trafficking were also partly used to purchase the properties in question;" and

c) That "the claimant has failed to rebut on balance of probabilities the legal presumption of liable person and illegal property under s. 35 of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988.

[5] In his petition of appeal, the appellant lists nine grounds why he is dissatisfied with the forfeiture order. All nine grounds "might be dealt with together as they are all concerned whether or not the learned Sessions Court Judge has applied the correct test in ordering the forfeiture in the circumstances of the case." (emphasis added). This was said by learned counsel for the appellant in his oral submission at the hearing of the appeal. In his submission the appellant's counsel referred to, inter alia, 3 sheets of documents collectively marked as encl. 1. This document seems to have been issued pursuant to ss. 6(1) and 9 of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 (as amended by A629, A707, A738 and A766 as well as under the Kaedah-Kaedah Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) Prosedur Lembaga Penasihat 1987. It was conceded by the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP), that the said documents ought to have been but was not included in the record of appeal.

[6] The appellant's counsel focuses on the 1st paragraph of the portion of encl. 1 entitled: "ALASAN-ALASAN YANG ATASNYA PERINTAH ITU DIBUAT": "Bahawa kamu (Kii Sie Hoong) adalah seorang pengedar Pil Ecstacy yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya jenis 3, 4 Methylenedioxy Methamphetamine di kawasan Pusat Hiburan The Master Club, Jalan Lanang, Sibu, Sarawak sejak Ogos 1999 hingga Februari 2000 dan dari awal September 2001 hingga Disember 2002." The underlined portion was emphasized by counsel.

[7] One of the gro