CASE OF THE WEEK

The respondent was jointly charged with one Abdul Latif bin Muhamad Baksh (`Abdul Latif') under s. 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (`Act') for trafficking in 168.73g of Methamphetamine (`the said drugs'). ASP Norosid (`PW5') and a team of police officers conducted a surveillance at Jalan Pandan Cahaya whereby PW5 had observed a Proton Waja (`the car') driven by the respondent, was parked on the same stretch of road as PW5's car was parked. Several minutes later, PW5 observed Abdul Latif, who was not carrying any items with him, entered the car from the back passenger door. After several minutes, PW5 approached the respondent and upon examination of the car, PW5 found a paper bag which was folded at the side of the left foot of the respondent and seized the said item. In the paper bag, there was a plastic bag which contained the said drugs as defined in s. 2 of the Act. PW5 testified that on being apprehended, both the respondent and Abdul Latif looked fearful and restless. PW3, who was the managing director of a transport and travel company, testified that the car was rented to the respondent and another person by the name of Hamid for one month starting from 15 November 2008. In the High Court, the learned trial judge acquitted and discharged Abdul Latif but found that the prosecution had proved a prima facie case against the respondent for possession of the said drugs and he was ordered to enter his defence on the reduced charge of possession, an offence which was punishable under s. 39A(2) of the Act. The trial judge held that since the respondent had been found to be in custody and control of the said drugs, by virtue of s. 37(d) of the Act, the statutory presumption of knowledge could be invoked in order to prove possession. Dissatisfied with the decision, the prosecution appealed to this court in respect of the respondent only. The Public Prosecutor submitted, inter alia, that: (i) the trial judge had erred in her decision that the respondent did not have mens reapossession of the incriminating drugs and (ii) the trial judge ought to have invoked the presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the Act against the respondent.

Held (dismissing appeal; affirming decision of High Court)

Per Hasan Lah JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) It is trite law that the presumptions in s. 37(d) and s. 37(da) of the Act cannot be applied together to find an accused person guilty of trafficking in drugs under the Act. If the presumption of trafficking was to be invoked, there must first be a factual finding of possession (PP v. Abdul Rahim Kalandari Mustan; refd). (para 22)

(2) Based on the prosecution's evidence, the rental for the car was paid by Hamid on 15 November 2008. The respondent was arrested about two weeks later. Hence, there was no evidence to show how often the respondent had been driving the car from 15 November 2008 to the date he was arrested as the said Hamid was not called to testify. (para 31)

(3) The prosecution's case rested substantially on the evidence of PW5. From the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the court agreed with the finding of the learned trial judge that the paper bag was under the custody and control of the respondent as he was alone in the car before he was joined by Abdul Latif. There was no reason to doubt PW5's evidence that it was the respondent who drove the car at the relevant time. Further, there was no sufficient evidence to infer knowledge against the respondent. It was not sufficient to rely on PW5's evidence that the respondent looked fearful and restless to infer knowledge against the respondent as that was a matter of perception. (para 35)

(4) Unlike the facts in PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif, the respondent was not the owner of the car. There was no evidence to show as to how long he had been driving the car before he was arrested and who put the paper bag in the car. Although there was physical proximity of the respondent to the paper bag, the evidence showed that the bag was folded and it was not concealed. (para 36)

(5) Having subjected the prosecution's evidence to a maximum evaluation, this court had no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned trial judge on the issue of knowledge. It had not been proved that the respondent knew the paper bag contained the incriminating drugs. Hence, the trial judge had correctly invoked the presumption under s. 37(d) of the Act against the respondent. (para 37)

(6) When the respondent was arrested, he was carrying the drugs and by definition, trafficking includes "carrying". The quantity of the said drugs was in excess of the minimum statutory weight of trafficking of 50g Methamphetamine. However, there was no further evidence to show that the respondent was carrying the incriminating drugs for the purpose of delivering it to a purchaser. (para 40)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Responden telah dituduh bersama-sama dengan seorang bernama Abdul Latif bin Muhamad Baksh (`Abdul Latif') di bawah s. 39(B)(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (`Akta') untuk pengedaran 168.73g Methamphetamine (`dadah tersebut'). ASP Norosid (`PW5') dan sepasukan pihak polis telah menjalankan satu pengawasan di Jalan Pandan Cahaya di mana PW5 telah membuat pemerhatian terhadap sebuah kereta Proton Waja (`kereta') yang dipandu oleh responden, diletak sama baris dengan kereta PW5. Beberapa minit kemudian, PW5 pula telah memerhati Abdul Latif, yang tidak membawa apa-apa barang bersamanya, memasuki kereta itu dari bahagian pintu belakang. Selepas beberapa minit, PW5 menghampiri responden dan atas pemeriksaan kereta yang dilakukan, PW5 telah menjumpai satu beg kertas dalam keadaan terlipat berada di bahagian kiri kaki responden dan lalu merampas barang tersebut. Di dalam beg kertas itu, terdapat satu beg plastik yang mengandungi dadah tersebut, seperti yang ditakrif di bawah s. 2 Akta. PW5 memberi keterangan bahawa semasa ditahan, kedua-dua responden dan Abdul Latif kelihatan takut dan gelisah. PW3, yang merupakan pengarah pengurusan sebuah syarikat pengangkutan dan perjalanan, memberi keterangan bahawa kereta itu telah disewa oleh responden dan seorang lagi bernama Hamid untuk tempoh sebulan bermula dari 15 November 2008. Di Mahkamah Tinggi, yang arif hakim perbicaraan melepas dan membebaskan Abdul Latif tetapi mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap responden untuk pemilikan dadah dan diperintah untuk memasukkan pembelaannya terhadap tuduhan yang dikurangkan kepada pemilikan, suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s. 39A(2) Akta. Hakim perbicaraan memutuskan bahawa memandangkan responden telah dijumpa berada dalam jagaan dan kawalan dadah tersebut, menurut s. 37(d) Akta, anggapan statutori bagi pengetahuan boleh dibangkitkan bagi membuktikan pemilikan. Tidak puas hati dengan keputusan itu, pihak Pendakwa Raya telah merayu ke mahkamah ini terhadap responden sahaja. Pihak Pendakwa Raya berhujah, antara lain, bahawa (i) hakim perbicaraan gagal dalam memutuskan yang responden tidak mempunyai mens rea pemilikan bagi dadah terbabit; dan (ii) hakim perbicaraan sepatutnya membangkitkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah s. 37(da) Akta terhadap responden.

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan; mengesahkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi)

Oleh Hasan Lah HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Adalah undang-undang nyata bahawa anggapan di bawah
s. 37(d) dan s. 37(da) tidak boleh dipakai bersama-sama supaya seseorang tertuduh didapati bersalah mengedar dadah di bawah Akta. Jika anggapan pengedaran dibangkitkan, perlu ada pertamanya dapatan faktual untuk pemilikan. (PP v. Abdul Rahim Kalandari Mustan; dirujuk).

(2) Berdasarkan keterangan pihak Pendakwa Raya, sewa kereta telah dibayar oleh Hamid pada 15 November 2008. Responden telah ditangkap kira-kira dua minggu kemudian. Oleh itu, tiada keterangan untuk menunjukkan kekerapan responden memandu kereta itu dari 15 November 2008 sehingga tarikh beliau ditangkap memandangkan Hamid tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan.

(3) Kes pihak Pendakwa Raya hanya bergantung kepada keterangan PW5. Daripada keseluruhan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Pendakwa Raya, mahkamah telah bersetuju dengan dapatan yang arif hakim perbicaraan bahawa beg kertas itu berada di bawah jagaan dan kawalan responden kerana hanya beliau berada di kereta sebelum disertai oleh Abdul Latif. Tiada sebab untuk meragui keterangan PW5 bahawa adalah responden yang telah memandu kereta itu pada masa tersebut. Lagipun, tiada keterangan memadai untuk membuat kesimpulan pengetahuan terhadap responden. Adalah tidak mencukupi untuk bergantung kepada keterangan PW5 bahawa responden kelihatan takut dan gelisah untuk membuat kesimpulan pengetahuan terhadap responden memandangkan ia adalah suatu tanggapan.

(4) Berbeza daripada fakta di dalam PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif, responden bukanlah pemilik kereta itu. Tiada keterangan yang menunjukkan berapa lama responden telah memandu kereta itu sebelum ditangkap dan siapa yang meletak beg kertas itu ke dalam kereta. Walaupun terdapat pendekatan fisikal responden dan beg kertas tersebut, keterangan menunjukkan bahawa beg itu berada dalam keadaan terlipat dan tidak tersembunyi.

(5) Dengan mengambil keterangan pihak Pendakwa Raya atas penilaian maksima, mahkamah ini tidak mempunyai sebarang sebab untuk tidak menyetujui dapatan yang arif hakim perbicaraan terhadap isu pengetahuan. Tidak dibuktikan bahawa responden mengetahui beg kertas mengandungi dadah terbabit itu. Oleh itu, yang arif hakim telah dengan betul membangkitkan anggapan di bawah s. 37(d) Akta terhadap responden.

(6) Apabila responden ditangkap, beliau membawa dadah dan mengikut tafsiran, pengedaran merangkumi "membawa". Kuantiti dadah tersebut adalah melebihi berat minima statutori pengedaran bagi 50g Methamphetamine. Walaubagaimanapun, tiada keterangan lanjut untuk menunjukkan bahawa responden membawa dadah terbabit itu untuk tujuan penghantaran kepada pembeli.

Case(s) referred to:

Herchun Singh & Ors v. PP [1969] 1 LNS 52 FC (refd)

Lim Kheak Teong v. PP [1984] 2 CLJ 219 [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 207 FC (refd)

Mohamad Yazri Minhat v. PP [2003] 2 CLJ 65 CA (refd)

Ong Ah Chuan v. PP & Another Appeal [1980] 1 LNS 181 PC (refd)

Parlan Dadeh v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 717 FC (refd)

PP v. Abdul Rahim Kalandari Mustan [2008] 5 CLJ 108 FC (refd)

PP v. Abdul Rahman Akif [2007] 4 CLJ 337 FC (dist)

Legislation referred to:

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 2, 12(2), 37(d), (da), 39A(2), 39B(1)(a)

Counsel:

For the appellant - Samihah Rhazali DPP

For the respondent - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co

[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Criminal Trial No: 45-242-2008]

Reported by Kumitha Abd Majid