JUDGMENT

Mohd Noor Ahmad FCJ:

The appellant was charged under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (the Act) together with another co-accused, his female companion. The charge stated that the accused on 13 September 1990 at about 1.45am at house No. 1, Jalan Taman Melur, Ampang, Hulu Langat, Selangor did traffic in dangerous drugs, to wit, heroin weighing 86.47 grams in contravention of the said section of the Act and punishable under s. 39B(2) of the Act. At the close of the prosecution case, the co-accused was acquitted and the appellant was called upon to enter his defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. On appeal to this court, we allowed his appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence. We now give our reasons.

Briefly, the case for the prosecution is this:

On 12 September 1990 at about 9.45pm a police surveillance team led by PW4 at Jalan Pandan 1, Ampang saw the appellant approaching the area of the surveillance. When approached by PW4 and his team, the appellant ran away. He was apprehended and arrested after a chase. Subsequently, he led the police party to a car. In the car sitting in the front passenger seat was the co-accused, who was also arrested. A bunch of seven keys was seized from the co-accused. Both the appellant and the co-accused were brought back to the office of PW4 at Jalan Hang Tuah. On 13 September 1990 at about 1.45am. PW4 and his team proceeded to a double-storey link house as described in the charge. The appellant and the co-accused were brought along. They entered the house by using the keys from the bunch of keys which was seized from the co-accused. PW4 then opened the door of the back room on the first floor with one of the keys from the same bunch of keys and entered the room. Inside the room, PW4 opened a cupboard by using one of the keys from the same bunch of keys. At the bottom of the cupboard he found three bags and a box. The three bags contained the drugs, which is the subject-matter of the charge. The box contained a weighing machine. In the same room, PW4 found the international passports of the appellant and the co-accused in a bag. In the room he also found, inter alia, the lease agreement for the house describing the appellant as the tenant and rental receipts in his name. On 15 September 1990, the appellant gave a cautioned statement to the recording officer (PW6) under s. 37A of the Act. The cautioned statement was challenged as being inadmissible but was admitted in evidence after a trial within a trial. In the cautioned statement, the appellant admitted that the police had examined his room and the police found the drugs and the weighing machine in the cupboard which he had kept under lock and key. He also admitted having previously sold part of the drugs from the lot. Further, he admitted that he and the co-accused stayed together in the room. However, he stated that the co-accused had no knowledge of the drugs found in the room and that she was not at all involved with the drugs.

In his defence, the appellant deposed that he had fabricated the incriminating admissions in the cautioned statement as he wished to protect the co-accused and that the drugs were not his, that the room where the drugs were found was not his, that the room belonged to a male friend, that he was merely making use of that room, and that the house was occupied by five or six persons.

It is manifestly evident that the conviction of the appellant was based mainly on the cautioned statement. The main ground of the appeal before the Court of Appeal relates to the challenge on the admissibility of the cautioned statement and the reliance placed on it by the learned trial judge. At the trial within the trial, the first challenge was that PW6 had not explained to the appellant what the word "inducement" meant; and in this respect PW6 should have questioned the appellant further when the a