Edgar Joseph Jr. SCJ:

This appellant was prosecuted in the High Court of the Federal Territory upon the following two charges:

1st Charge:

That you on 18 January 1987 at about 12.40 p.m. at Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad, Brickfields, in the City of Kuala Lumpur, in the Federal Territory, being a security area as proclaimed by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong vide P.U.(A) 148 dated 15 May 1969, without lawful excuse and lawful authority did have in your possession a firearm, to wit, one .38 Smith and Wesson Special (Model 36) without serial numbers and that you have thereby contravened s. 57(1)(a) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Revised 1972) and punishable under s. 57(1) of the said Act.

2nd Charge:

That you on 18 January 1987 at about 12.40 p.m. at Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad, Brickfields, in the city of Kuala Lumpur, in the Federal Territory, being a security area as proclaimed by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong vide P.U.(A) 148 dated 15 May 1969 without lawful excuse and without lawful authority did have in your possession one round of .38 special ammunition and that you have thereby contravened s. 57(1)(b) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Revised 1972) and punishable under s. 57(1) of the said Act.

In the event, he was convicted of both the charges and sentenced to death, that being the mandatory sentence, prescribed by s. 57 (1) of the Internal Security Act 1960.

He then appealed against these convictions.

Before us, the convictions were attacked solely on one ground, and that revolved around the critical question, whether it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the revolver (Ex. P3) and ammunition (P9B) produced in the court below, which constituted the subject matter of the first and second charges, respectively, were, what was snatched from the hand of the appellant on the date, and at the time and place referred to in the charges.

Now, the whole of the material evidence in the case for the prosecution had been carefully and critically examined before us and we do not consider it necessary to recapitulate the evidence at length but, briefly, according to that evidence, the appellant was arrested within minutes after a robbery at gun point, the victim of the robbery being one Ong Chee Kew (PWl), who was set upon by the robber as he was about to open the door of his car parked just outside his home at Jalan Abdul Samad, in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur, and relieved of his wrist watch, gold chain and wallet.

Having snatched these personal effects, the robber took to his heels pursued by Ong who, by any standards, was a man of unusual courage and firmness. The robber was said to have fired three shots at Ong during the pursuit, one of which grazed his head. The robber then managed to stop a passing motor car, described as "a yellow car" - to get into it and again, at gun point, forced its driver, one Tan Chee Kean (PW2), to drive off.

Some 200 metres away, at Jalan Padang Belia, Brickfields, a fat male Malay - later identified as Constable Shamsuddin bin Setar (PW3) - who happened to be at the scene, (together with his superior Inspector Abdul Manan and Sergeant Manaf), having been alerted by some members of the public as to what was happening - drew his revolver and pointed it at Tan in an attempt to stop him, but understandably, Tan had no choice but to continue driving; as he did so, the robber shot once at Shamsuddin, but missed.

Inspector Abdul Manan then pursued the yellow car through Jalan Tun Sambanthan Tiga into Jalan Sambanthan, and then into Jalan Travers where, with the help of Police Constable Richards, who also happened to be at the scene riding his motor cycle, he managed to stop the yellow car.

According to Inspector Manan, Police Constable Richards then opened the driver's door of the yellow car, the driver Tan pointed to the robber who was in a stooping position in the rear seat, the latter then straightened up, and "pointed a pistol" at him. But, added Manan, "I then snatched the pistol from his hand".

He