Possession of drugs does not require exclusivity; circumstantial evidence combining facts establishes intent and possession necessary for trafficking charges.

Ahmad Maarop FCJ (delivering judgment of the court):

BACKGROUND

The appellant — Siew Yoke Keong ('Siew') was retried in the High Court on the charge of trafficking in 1,583.4g of dangerous drugs (1,452.1g of heroin and 131.3g of monoacetylmorphines) on 13 August 1997, at about 1.50am at house No 3, Lot 6862-A, Lorong 3D, Kampung Baru Subang, in the District of Petaling, in the State of Selangor, an offence under s 39B(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ('DDA')s 39B(2)

THE PROSECUTION'S CASE

The evidence adduced by the prosecution is as follows. Acting on information received on 13 August 1997 at about 12.30am, DSP Yap Seng Hock ('PW6') and a team of police personnel which included Sgt Major Mohd Kasim bin Awang Noh ('PW5') waited in ambush in the vicinity of house No 7 Jalan 3, Taman Subang. At about 1.10am on the same date, a car arrived in front of the house. The driverwas the only person in the car. The car did not stop. It proceeded to the end of the road, and about 2–3 minutes later, it turned back and stopped in front of the house. The driver — who was Siew, got out of the car. PW6 and his team pounced on Siew, identified himself as a police officer and arrested Siew. At that time Siew was holding a black sling bag. In that bag, PW6 found a wallet, Siew's identity card and a bunch of three keys. Siew was whisked away and taken to Balai Polis Kg Baru Subang.

At the police station, PW6 administered the caution under s 37A

PW6 then went to the second room. He found it locked. According to PW6, he asked Siew where the room key was. PW6 said he found a bunch of eight keys on the long fluorescent lamp which was fixed above the door to the bathroom. That bunch of keys was pointed to him by Siew. Learned counsel representing Siew in the High Court objected to that evidence on the ground that it was not evidence which led to discovery as Siew had been arrested by then and the act of pointing amounted to a statement. Learned counsel contended that a trial within a trial should have been conducted. More of this later when we deal with learned counsel's submission on this issue. Now, reverting to PW6's evidence, the location of the bunch of keys on the fluorescent lamp was such that one could not see it when entering the bathroom. The bathroom was in darkness. PW6 switched on the lamp. Then with his hands, PW6 groped for the keys on top of the lamp. Using one of the keys from the bunch of keys which he had retrieved, PW6 managed to open the door to the second room. PW6 switched on the lights in the room. He saw a safe (brand 'Leeco') in the room — to the left of the door. The safe was locked with a combination lock and a key.

PW6 managed to find the key to the safe. It was found at the crook of one of the legs of the dining table which was in the living room. The key was pointed to him by Siew. That evidence was also objected to by learned counsel representing Siew on similar grounds of objection in respect of Siew's act of pointing which led to finding byPW6 of the bunch of keys on top of the lamp which was fixed on the door to the bathroom. According to PW6, unless shown the key, one would not be able to see the key at the place where it was hidden. Using the key found at the