Augustine Paul J:

The accused in this case was charged with trafficking in 953.2 grammes of cannabis, an offence under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952("the Act") and punishable under s. 39B(2) of the Act.

On 16 June 2000 Chief Inspector Yap Huat Tian (PW4) led a team of eight police officers, which included detective Lance Corporal Lim Hee Jiang (PW3) and Corporal Romli, to premises number Block 4, Desa Tun Razak, Sungei Besi, Kuala Lumpur ("the premises") to conduct an arrest operation. PW3 and Corporal Romli were directed to be at the ground floor of the premises to conduct surveillance duty. PW4 was at a higher floor for the same purpose. He and PW3 communicated with each other with the aid of a walkie talkie. At about 11.15 p.m. PW4 instructed PW3 to arrest a male Malay who was walking towards the lift. He then came down immediately by using the lift. When he came down PW3 and Corporal Romli had already arrested the male Malay who is the accused. PW3 said that the accused attempted to escape upon Corporal Romli identifying himself as "police" but was not successful. When the accused was arrested PW3 took possession of a white plastic bag with the word "starmart" (exh. P5) which he was holding. PW3 then handed exh. P5, which had some contents, to PW4 who opened it. It contained a packet wrapped in old newspaper. PW4 unwrapped the packet and found it to contain a granular substance wrapped with masking tape. Upon tearing open the tape he found the granular substance to be plant material which he suspected to be cannabis. The accused and the exhibits were then handed over to Chief Inspector Zainozin bin Ishak (PW2), the investigating officer. On 19 June 2000 PW2 sent the exhibits to the chemist for analysis. On 14 July 2000 he received back the exhibits together with a report (exh. P16) the material part of which reads as follows:

Saya telah memeriksa kotak bertanda 'Z' dan mendapati di dalamnya satu bungkusan plastik dibalut dengan pita pelekat bertanda 'A2' mengandungi 953.2 gram (berat bersih) satu bongkal bahan tumbuhan termampat. Setelah dianalisis, saya dapati bahan tumbuhan tersebut adalah 'cannabis'.

Upon being referred to exh. P16 in his cross-examination PW2 said:

Saya ada timbang barang kes itu. Jumlah berat yang saya timbang adalah berbeza dengan berat di laporan kimia.

In his re-examination on this issue PW2 said,

Saya timbang masking tape yang berisi ketulan mampat.

PW2 served a copy of exh. P16 on the accused on 21 February 2001.

At the close of the case for the prosecution learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution had not made out a prima faciecase. His submission was based essentially on two grounds, that is to say,

(i) the prosecution has failed to prove the weight of the dangerous drugs, and

(ii)in a case of trafficking, as in this case, knowledge of possession of the dangerous drugs must be proved by direct evidence without resort to presumptions.

With regard to the first objection raised by learned counsel it was his contention that the weight of the dangerous drugs as found by PW2 was different from that stated in the chemist report. He said that this means the evidence advanced by the prosecution in relation to the weight of the dangerous drugs is contradictory and unsatisfactory and as such ought to be rejected. This submission is answered by the evidence of PW2 who having said that there was a difference in the weight of the dangerous drugs as weighed by him and as stated in exh. P16 said in re-examination that he weighed the dangerous drugs together with the masking tape. It must, however, be observed that the weight referred to in exh. P16 is the "berat bersih." That explains the difference in the weight of the dangerous drugs as weighed by PW2 and the chemist. Surely the nett weight of the dangerous drugs must be different compared to its weight when weighed with the masking tape. It follows that the difference in weight must be due to the weighing of the