A conviction under the Dangerous Drugs Act requires adherence to proper evidentiary procedures; discrepancies may raise reasonable doubts implicating the integrity of evidence.

Introduction

[1] The Respondent in the present case was charged under section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Revised 1980) [Act 234] at the Magistrates Court Kuala Lumpur. The charge against the Respondent reads:

"Bahawa kamu pada 5 January 2019 jam lebih kurang 2.05 pagi bertempat di tandas W Club Enterprise Sdn Bhd W Hotel, Tingkat 12, No 121 Jalan Ampang, di dalam daerah Dang Wangi, Wiiayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, sebagai orang yang tidak diberi kuasa di bawah undang-undang, didapati kamu memberikan kepada diri sendiri 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinoI-9-carboxylic acid ke dalam badan kamu sendiri. Oleh yang demikian itu kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah sek: 15(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya ("ADB") yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan Akta yang sama."

[2] Upon conviction, the Respondent shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Immediately after having undergone the punishment imposed upon him in respect thereof, he shall undergo supervision by an officer as defined under s 2 of the Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 [Act 283] for a period of not less than two and not more than three years, as may be determined by the Court.

[3] The Respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The Prosecution's Case

[4] During the prosecution's case, six witnesses were called to give evidence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution can be summarised as follows.

[5] On 5 JanuaryAnti-Narcotics Division, Dang Wangi Police Headquarters, conducted a raid at an entertainment centre known as Pusat Hiburan W Club Enterprise Sdn Bhd, 12th Floor, W Hotel, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur. 2019, at around 12.30 am, ASP Hisam bin Abu ("SP1"), Insp Mohd Haszaruddin bin Kamaruzzaman ("SP2") and a team of police officers from the Criminal Investigation

[6] A total of 101 individuals were detained and searched, but nothing incriminating was found. Each of them was made to undergo a preliminary urine test. The Respondent was amongst them.

[7] Before the urine samples were collected, SP1 gave a briefing concerning the process of taking urine samples. SP1 instructed all the detainees to give urine samples of not less than 30ml. The Respondent was allowed to choose his urine sample bottle. Each bottle was wrapped in a plastic wrapper with five test strips.

[8] The Respondent was accompanied to the toilet in the said premise, where he gave his urine sample. After completing the process, the Respondent brought the urine sample bottle and placed it on a table. Then, he opened the bottle cover. SP1 then conducted a preliminary screening test by dipping the five test strips into the Respondent's urine sample. The Respondent's urine sample tested positive for "THC". SP1 informed the result of the preliminary test to the Respondent and closed the bottle lid in front of him. SP1 then proceeded to label the bottle.

[9] SP1 placed his signature on the label attached to the bottle and the form ("Ex P3"). SP1 then placed a label on the bottle with a blue-coloured seal with serial no: 0325083, which was placed around the bottle. SP1 lodged a police report regarding the raid ("Ex P1").

[10] On the same day, at 7.00 am, SP1 handed over the exhibits and the form to the Investigating Officer, SM Jamil bin Awang ("SP6"). At around 8.15 am, SP6 handed over the said bottle and the form to L/Kpl Mohd Faiszul bin Mohd Faudzi ("SP3") for safekeeping. SP3 kept the bottle in a refrigerator in his office before sending them to the Pathology Department, Hospital Kuala Lumpur ("HKL"), for analysi