Mohd Azmi SCJ:

[1] The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death on a charge of trafficking in 544.18 grammes of cannabis in the following amended terms:

That you on 12 July 1986 at about 1.20 am. at Kampong Tengah of Batu Kikir, in the District of Jempol, in the State of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, did on your own behalf traffic in dangerous drug, to wit 544.18 grammes of cannabis and that you have thereby committed an offence under s 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Revised 1980) and punishable under s 39B(2) of the same Act.

[2] In this case the learned trial Judge had accepted the prosecution evidence that on 11 July 1986 at about midnight a party of four police officers led by Inspector Zabidi (PW2) were on motorcycle crime prevention patrol at Kampong Tengah, Jempol. At about 1.20 am (12 July 1986) as the police party was leaving the kampung road for the main road, they came across the appellant walking with another man identified as one Hashim. The learned Judge had no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the police that at the material time the appellant was carrying the cannabis in a bag slung across his shoulders, and when Inspector Zabidi stopped them and identified himself as a police officer, Hashim ran away while the appellant threw the bag he was carrying into the padi field by the side of the road. Despite being pursued by the police, Hashim apparently managed to escape and could not be traced until today, but the appellant was apprehended after a short struggle although he denied trying to run away.

[3] From the evidence of the Government Chemist, Mr Ho Peng Hee (PW2) it was established beyond doubt that the 1,773 paper rolls carried by the appellant contained 544.18 grammes of cannabis as defined in s 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The prosecution relied on the statutory presumption under s 37(d) of the Act that the appellant being in custody or control of the bag containing the dangerous drug should be presumed until the contrary was proved to have been in possession of such drug, and also should until the contrary was proved be deemed to have known that the drug was cannabis. Since the quantity of cannabis recovered exceeded 199 grammes, the prosecution also relied on the statutory presumption under s 37(da) to prove that the appellant was trafficking in the said dangerous drug.

[4] The learned Judge was accordingly correct in law in calling for the defence after holding that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the appellant which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction.