(d) or (da) of the Act and vice versa. 23 [27] It is therefore pertinent to scrutinise the judgment of the learned trial judge to ascertain his finding on possession, namely whether he had made a finding of actual or mens rea possession or whether he had invoked presumed possession under s 37 (d) of the Act or whether he had relied on both mens rea and presumed possession. ……. [32] The finding of the learned trial judge in paras 18 and 34 of his grounds of judgment made it apparent that he had also invoked, albeit in the alternative, presumed possession under s 37 (d) of the Act. This approach, with respect, offended the principle of law that he ought not to rely on the alternative but to make an affirmative finding of mens rea possession or presumed possession of the dangerous drugs (see Seyedalireza; Ugonna Philip Nwankwo v PP [2016] 4 MLJ 244 ;[2016] 2 CLJ 247). [33] In the circumstances, we found merits in the submission of learned counsel on the first issue that the learned trial Judge had misdirected himself in finding that there was mens rea possession and in invoking the presumptions of possession under s 37 (d) of the Act at the same time.” [53] Coming back to our present case, the manner in which the learned High Court Judge made his findings on trafficking left us in doubt as to whether the learned High Court Judge was relying on section 2 or section 37 (da) of the DDA as proof of trafficking. There was no affirmative finding as to which section His Lordship was relying on. This had seriously prejudiced the appellants as they were left wondering which burden of proof they ought to undertake in order to prove their defence. The benefit of this doubt should be in favour of the appellants. 24 [54] On the issue of the credibility of SP 4 whereby he gave 2 different versions of how the drugs were found, we found that it was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Ultimately, it is not disputed that the drugs were found tied to the waist of each of the appellants. Whether the drugs were “diselitkan pada seluar sebelah kanan dan kiri pinggang” or “diikat dengan tali kain warna putih pada badan”, the overwhelming evidence was that the drugs were found on the body of the appellants, concealed from sight under each shirt. Here we were not concerned with the white cloth string, but the drugs in question. So long as the evidential chain of the drugs tendered from the time it was discovered to the time it was tendered in court were not affected, the identity of the drugs was not affected and hence it was not fatal to the charge in question. [55] On the alleged shoddy investigation by the investigation officer, SP 5, namely, the failure to do any fingerprint lifting and DNA analysis on the drug exhibits, the cloth fitting photo not taken and the CCTV recording was not investigated, these so-called failure to our minds would not affect the overwhelming evidence that it was the appellants who were caught with the drugs strapped at their waists at the material time. Similarly, the CCTV recording which showed both appellants went to the toilet, would not absolve the appellants of the charges of possession of the drugs. The case of PP v Yap Kim Wang [2016] 3 CLJ 433 at page 442 paragraph 8 (a) which was cited and quoted by the appellants’ counsel is a dissenting judgment. In addition, the facts there need to be distinguished from the facts in our present case. In PP v Yap Kim Wang, it concerned drugs which were found at a premise which was accessible to others, which has a bearing on the care and custody issue. Unlike the facts in our case, where the drugs were found 25 tied at the waist of the respective appellants. Hence, custody and control of the drugs is not an issue here. [56] Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned High Court Judge erred when he found that the defence was a bare denial and an afterthought. [57] The defence of the 1st appellant was a denial of any knowledge that the substances were drugs and he believed that the substance that were tied at his waist were prohibited medicines for which custom duties had not been paid. That was the reason why it was concealed in such a manner. However, this was never informed to the Narcotics Officer when he was detained at that material time. In fact, he kept quiet when asked by SP 4. Although it was in evidence that he showed by hand gesture pointing towards the 2nd appellant and said “he gave to me” however this was denied by SP 4. The evidence of SP 4 was that, the 1st appellant did not say anything when he was asked as to the contents of the packets. In fact, when the 1st appellant was asked by Corporal Kenneth Khanna, the 1st appellant kept quiet. Corporal Kenneth Khanna was offered to the defence but was never called by the defence. [58] The 1st appellant in his evidence also alleged that: