A mere possession of dangerous drugs, along with custody and control, suffices for conviction; claims of innocent carrier must be substantiated with credible evidence, a failure of which supports trafficking charges.

Abu Bakar Jais JCA:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1]This is an appeal by the Appellant Hadi Bakhshi Kheimeisari Aliasghar against conviction and sentence by the High Court (“HC”) and the cross-appeal of the Respondent Public Prosecutor against sentence meted out to the Appellant.

[2]The Appellant was convicted by the HC for a charge under s. 39B(1)(a)Dangerous Drugs Act 1952s. 39B(2A)

THE AMENDED CHARGE

[3]The amended charge against the Appellant reads:

Bahawa kamu pada 3/12/2014, jam lebih kurang 3.15 petang, di Kawasan Ketibaan Antarabangsa, Aras 3, MTB KLIA Sepang, di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor, telah mengedar dadah seberat 2856.0 gram Methamphetamine dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B (1) (a)Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B (2)Akta yang sama.

PROSECUTION’S CASE

[4]On 3 December 2014, around 3.15 pm, PW3 a police officer, was on duty at Kuala Lumpur International Airport (“KLIA). He saw the Appellant pushing two trolleys. On each trolley was a roller bag. Appellant seemed suspicious as he stopped a few times and was looking around while pushing the trolleys. PW3 stopped the Appellant and asked for his passport. Appellant had an Iranian passport. PW3 instructed the Appellant to scan his bags. No incriminating image was found from the scan. PW3 then instructed the Appellant to bring the bags to the Narcotics Office at the KLIA. The first bag, grey in colour was inspected by PW3. PW3 found a cloth was plastered inside the bag. He tore the cloth and found a blue plastic lining. In it, he found white powdery substance and he put the substance in two transparent plastics. PW3 then inspected the second bag, chocolate in colour. In the bag, similar cloth and lining were found. In the lining, white powdery substance was also found and he similarly put the substance in a transparent plastic. The substance was suspected to be dangerous drugs. PW3 then prepared a search list and lodged a police report. He then handed over the Appellant and what was discovered to the investigation officer, PW5. Later PW5 sent the white powdery substance to the chemist for analysis. The chemist, PW4 confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine weighing 2856.0 grams.

FINDINGS OF TRIAL JUDGE AT THE END OF PROSECUTION’S CASE

[5]The HC followed Balachandran v PP

[6]The Appellant had custody of the bags and the drugs were concealed in those bags. The Appellant also knew of the drugs. He was nervous when PW3 stopped him. That reaction showed the Appellant knew of the drugs in the bags. His personal belongings were also found in the bags. Following the Federal Court case of Mohd Zaiham Mislan v PP s. 8Evidence Act 1950s. 9EA

[7]The issue raised that there was no DNA and fingerprints test done in respect of the bags and drugs could not negate the custody, control and knowledge of the Appellant and the evidence tendered had proven the elements of the offence. Following the case of PP v Badrulsham bin Baharom

[8]The evidence of the chemist PW4 was also accepted. She had done the test personally on the drugs and it was not true that others were the ones doing the actual test. The test had been explained by the chemist and her findings that the drugs were methamphetamine with the weight of grams were accepted by the HC. The other issues raised by the Appellant against the chemist including calibration of the machine, vials of this case b