The presumption of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act applies when the quantity of controlled substances exceeds statutory limits; mere denial of knowledge does not negate liability if circumstances suggest willful blindness.

[1] In the court below, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer the death penalty upon the following charge:

"Bahawa kamu pada 26 Februari 2013 jam lebih kurang 3.30 petang di Karousel F, Aras 3, MTB KLIA, di dalam Daerah Sepang, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah memperedarkan dadah berbahaya, iaitu kokain seberat 779 gram dan oleh demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 39B(2) Akta yang sama".

[2] Being aggrieved with the said decision, the appellant appealed to this court. We dismissed the appeal after due consideration of the issues raised. We now proffer our grounds.

The Case For Prosecution

[3] On 26 February 2013, the appellant was seen by SP-5 (Insp Sherman Jackson) who was on duty at Carousel F, Aras 3, MTB, KLIA, picking up his luggage from Carousel F, appearing suspicious, looking worried and in search of the way out.

[4] SP-5 together with his team then approached the appellant and introduced himself as a police officer to him. The appellant was then taken to the scanning machine.

[5] The appellant was directed to put his luggage and the sling bag he had with him onto the scanning machine. SP-5 was unable to detect any illegal things in the bags.

[6] The appellant was subsequently taken to the Narcotics Office, Aras 3, MTB, KLIA, for further examination.

[7] At the office, SP-5 found nothing illegal in his sling bag.

[8] SP-5 next directed the appellant to open his luggage.

[9] In the luggage, SP-5 found three (3) boxes containing metal cylinders.

[10] In the first box which he marked as 'N1' he found 3 cylinders. SP-5 then used a metal cutting equipment to cut each of the three cylinders. In each of the cylinders, SP-5 found a plastic packet containing powdery substance believed to be cocaine. The powdery substance from each of the cylinders were then put into three (3) plastic bags prepared by SP-5. The three cylinders and their respective contents in the plastic bags were marked as 'N1a', 'N1b' and 'N1c' by SP-5.

[11] In the second box (marked 'N2' by SP-5), SP-5 found 2 metal cylinders. Upon being cut, SP-5 found each cylinder to contain a plastic packet containing powdery substance believed to be cocaine. The powdery substance from each of the cylinders were put into two (2) plastic bags prepared by SP-5 and the same were marked as 'N2a' and 'N2b' by SP-5.

[12] In the third box (marked 'N3' by SP-5) SP-5 found one (1) metal cylinder, which upon being cut, was found to contain a plastic packet containing powdery substance believed to be cocaine. The powdery substance were put into a plastic bag prepared by SP-5. SP-5 also marked the cylinder and its contents in the plastic bag as 'N3a'.

[13] SP-5 next lodged a police report pertaining to the arrest of the appellant and the seizure of the said substance vide KLIA Sepang Report No 2097/13 (exhibit P42).

[14] The appellant and the incriminating exhibits were subsequently taken to the Narcotics Office, IPD Sepang, where SP-5 then handed the same over to the investigating officer, SP-6 (Insp Paul a/l John) together with the other exhibits and relevant documents seized from the appellant.

[15] On 1 March 2013, the substance suspected to be cocaine were sent to the government chemist, SP-4 (Dr Vanitha a/p Kunalan). She confirmed the said substance consisted of 779 grammes of cocaine (hereinafter referred to as the 'said drugs'). Her report is exhibit P27.

[16] SP-4 also testified that cocaine is a dangerous drug listed under the First Schedule of the Dangerous Drugs Act , 1952 (hereinafter referred