Raus Sharif PCA (delivering judgment of the court):

INTRODUCTION

The appellant was charged in the High Court for an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs, to wit 4,607g of cannabis, an offence under s 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952s 39B(2)

On 31 May 2010, the High Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death. On 8 May 2012, the Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence.

We heard the appeal on 25 March 2013. After hearing the parties, we dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.

THE FACTS

The facts relevant to the issues raised in this appeal are these. The appellant was arrested on 27 February 2004 at about 10pm at the bus station in front of the Proton Car manufacturing company at Seksyen 26, in Petaling District of Selangor. At the time of his arrest, he was carrying a green DIADORA canvass bag (P10). Inside P10, Inspector Musafar bin Mahmud (‘PW4’) found five slabs of cannabis wrapped in transparent plastic (exhs P12, P14, P16, P18 and P20). A search list (P22) was prepared and issued by PW4.

PW4 marked the bag P10 with ‘A’ and affixed a date ‘27/2/2004’ on it. The five slabs of drug exhibits were each marked as ‘A1 to A5’ respectively. PW4 also placed his signature and affixed the date ‘27/2/2004’ on each of the five slabs of drug exhibits.

On 28 February 2004, at about 1am PW4 handed the exhibits to the investigating officer of this case, Chief Inspector Idris bin Seth (‘PW6’). The handing over was documented in P23. PW6 then placed his own markings similar to PW4 on all the exhibits with a date ‘28/2/2004’. He also placed his signature on all the exhibits. PW6 then weighed the five slabs of the drugs exhibits. The weight recorded was 4,860g. He then kept the exhibits in a locked cabinet to which he held the key.

On the next day, PW6 instructed the police photographer Atan ak Desa (‘PW1’) to take photographs of the exhibits. After the photographs were taken, the exhibits were sent to Inspector Faizal of the Forensic Unit. The exhibits sent were documented in P24. The same exhibits were received by PW6 from Inspector Rahayu Ghani at 9.17am on 8 June 2004. The handing over was documented in P25. After the receipt of the exhibits, they were kept by PW6 in a locked cabinet to which she kept the key.

On 9 June 2004, PW6 sent the bag P10 and drug exhibits to the chemist (‘SP3’). Before dispatch, the exhibits were packed and sealed in a box marked ‘A’. On the box, PW6 placed the police report No Batu 3 Report No 3038/04 as well as his name.

PW3 confirmed receiving the sealed box (exh P9) marked as ‘A’ from PW6 on 9 June 2004 at 10.07am. PW3 issued a receipt (P7) bearing Makmal (PJ) FOR 5021/04-0 and a sticker with the same lab number placed on the box marked ‘A’. PW3 inspected the box and found it to contain a DIADORA canvass bag marked ‘A’ with five slabs of dried leaves which were marked as A1–A5 respectively. In her chemist report (P8) she stated that the five slabs of drug exhibits that were received from SP6 was wrapped in aluminum foil reinforced by adhesive tape. But while giving evidence in court, she corrected it by stating that the five drug exhibits were wrapped with transparent plastic. She then applied to the court to have the chemist report P8 amended by substituting the word aluminum foil with transparent plastic.

PW3 weighed the five slabs of the drug exhibits separately. The total gross weight recorded was 4,688.55g. Upon analysis of the exhibits, PW3 found that the drug exhibits were cannabis as defined under s 2DDA

PW6 thereafter had the exhibits registered and kept safe at the store exhibit at the Narcotics Department at the Selangor Police Headquarters. The exhibits were kept there until they were produced for trial in the High Court.

ISSUES AND FINDINGS

Before us, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were material discrepancies on the condition of the drug exhibits, in particular with regard to the manner in which the drugs exhibits were wrapped and the g