Richard Malanjum CJ

(Sabah and Sarawak)

(delivering judgment of the court):

Briefly, the appellant and one Sajan Gurung (second accused) were charged together for trafficking dangerous drug, namely, 875.2g of heroin, an offence under s 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA’)s 34Penal Code

They were both convicted and sentenced to death as mandated under s 39B(2)DDA

In his petition of appeal and in the written submission filed with this court several grounds of appeal were submitted and canvassed for consideration. However, during the hearing learned counsel for the appellant in his oral submission focused on one main point of law, that is, the interpretation of s 40ADDA (‘the section’)

The section reads:

Section 40A Evidence of agent provocateur admissible

(1)Notwithstanding any rule of law or the provisions of this Act or any other written law to the contrary, no agent provocateur shall be presumed to be unworthy of credit by reason only of his having attempted to abet or abetted the commission of an offence by any person under this Act if the attempt to abet or abetment was for the sole purpose of securing evidence against such person.

(2)Notwithstanding any rule of law of the provisions