(1)Section 41(1) of the RTA creates three types of distinct offences, ie: (i) the first limb - driving a motor vehicle recklessly; (ii) the second limb - driving at a high speed; and (iii) the third limb - driving in a manner dangerous to the public. The charge against the appellant contained two offences, ie, driving recklessly or dangerously, in that, the prosecution joined the first limb to the third limb of s. 41(1). Therefore, there was a duplicity of charges which caused confusion to the prosecution, the appellant and the courts, when the prosecution was unsure which offence that need to be established against the appellant, whereas the appellant was confused as to which offence that she had to answer to. The courts also could not decide with certainty for which offence had a prima facie case been established. Hence, the appellant had successfully shown that there were multiple confusions at every stage of the proceedings up to the conviction. The confusions caused prejudice to the appellant. [20] Seterusnya hujahan pembelaan bahawa sepatutnya memilih bagaimanakah cara OKT menggunakan dadah tersebut dengan merujuk kepada seksyen 15(2) ADB juga adalah bukan suatu keperluan undang-undang bila mana pendakwaan di dalam kes ini telah berjaya membangkitkan pemakaian anggapan seksyen 37(k) ADB. Anggapan sebegini digubal parlimen adalah bertujuan untuk membantu pendakwaan membuktikan elemen OKT telah menggunakan dadah tanpa perlu membuktikan bagaimanakah caranya dadah itu digunakan. Apa yang perlu dibuktikan pendakwaan hanyalah hasil ujian air kencing OKT adalah positif dadah sudah memadai untuk membuatkan anggapan bahawa OKT menggunakan dadah terpakai. Meletakkan beban yang lebih kepada pendakwaan sepertimana hujahan pembelaan adalah suatu salah arah undang-undang yang jelas. Hal ini adalah sepertimana di dalam pemakaian anggapan di dalam kes rasuah. Pendakwaan di dalam kes rasuah hanya perlu membuktikan wujudnya penyerahan wang suapan untuk membuktikan anggapan bahawa tindakan itu telah dibuat secara rasuah di bawah seksyen 50(1) ASPRM 09. Kes yang sering dijadikan rujukan adalah seperti Attan bin Abdul Gani v PP [1970] 2 MLJ 143, dimuka surat 145 misalnya, mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa : “Once it is proved that the gratification has been paid or received then in the words of section 14 of the Act “Such gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given or received corruptly…” The presumption at once arised under the section. This presumption is a presumption of law and it is obligatory on the court to raise it in every proceeding for an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Act provided it is proved that the gratification had been paid, given or received. The prosecution has not to establish anything more than the payment of money (See State of Madras v Vaidyanatha Iyer and Emden v State of Uttar Pradesh). It then becomes the duty of the accused to disprove what section 14 begins to presume against him…” [21] Berdasarkan alasan di atas saya memutuskan bahawa pertuduhan ke atas OKT adalah tidak cacat dan tidak memprejudiskan OKT di dalam memberikan pembelaannya. Sama ada kegagalan pendakwaan mengemukakan urin OKT di dalam botol urin telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. [22] Pembelaan membangkitkan bahawa isu ini adalah fatal dan kegagalan pendakwaan menandakan dan mengemukakan air kencing OKT di dalam botol urin adalah satu kesilapan yang fatal kepada kes pendakwaan. Pembelaan membawakan contoh di mana di dalam kes pemilikan dadah, kebiasaannya pendakwaan akan juga mengemukakan dan menandakan baki kandungan dadah selepas dianalisa ke mahkamah. Tiada kes mahkamah dikemukakan pembelaan bagi isu ini namun pihak pendakwaan telah berhujah balas dengan merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang, dalam kes Mohd Fadzli b Abdullah v PP [41A-1-2011] telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah tersebut untuk dipanggil OKT membela diri dan telah menolak penghujahan peguambela atas beberapa perkara. Peguambela OKT antaranya telah membuat penghujahan terhadap isu bahawa botol tersebut tidak dikemukakan di Mahkamah. YA Hakim di dalam kes tersebut telah bersetuju dengan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya bahawa botol sample urin tidak perlu dikemukakan di Mahkamah kerana adalah diketahui bahawa botol tersebut sememangnya akan dilupuskan oleh Unit Patalogi selepas analisa. Tidak mengemukakan botol tersebut tidak akan memudharatkan kes. [23] Pendakwaan seterusnya berhujah bahawa di dalam kes ini pendakwaan telah mengemukakan botol urin dengan spesimen urin Tertuduh bersama label yang masih sempurna kepada Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini dan specimen botol urin tersebut telah dikemukakan kepada saksi SP2, SP4,SP5 dan SP6. Kesemua saksi pendakwaan telah mengecam botol urin OKT dan telah mengesahkan bahawa botol urin yang dikemukakan adalah botol urin yang sama dengan kandungan urin daripada OKT. Oleh itu, pendakwaan berhujah bahawa kegagalan menanda kandungan urin dalam botol urin adalah tidak fatal dan tidak mengugatkan kes pendakwaan dihadapan mahkamah ini. [24] Saya bersetuju dengan hujahan pendakwaan bahawa kegagalan mengemukakan atau menandakan baki sampel air kencing OKT setelah dibuat analisa di Jabatan Patologi tidaklah memudaratkan pembuktian kes pendakwaan memandangkan rantaian keterangan di dalam kes ini berhubung pengendalian sampel urin di dalam botol urin dan botol urin sejak diambil daripada OKT sehinggalah dibuat analisa oleh SP5 dan Laporan Patologi dikeluarkan adalah tidak terputus dan kekal utuh. Tiada keperluan untuk botol urin atau isi kandungan urin dikemukakan di mahkamah sekiranya telah dibuktikan bahawa rantaian keterangan ini tidak terputus sehingga Pegawai Patalogi selesai menyediakan Laporan Patologinya. Prinsip ini ada diterangkan panjang lebar di Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Gunalan a/l Ramachandran & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2004] 4 MLJ 489 sepertimana berikut :- [40] Learned counsel then tried to cast doubts on the exhibits. He traced the history of the movement of the exhibits from the time of recovery until the trial. He drew our attention to the fact that the drug was recovered on 3 February 1999. On 15 March, PW5 (the Investigating Officer) sent the exhibits to PW7, the police finger print expert. They were taken back on 23 August 1999. On 24 September, the exhibits were sent to the chemist which was seven months and 20 days after the recovery. On 18 February 2000, the exhibits were taken back from the chemist. In April 2000, PW5 was transferred out. He did not send the exhibits to the store. He was interdicted in August 1999. There was no handing over until 28 March 2002 when the exhibits were handed to PW8 by PW5. In the meantime, there was another officer who took over the case. The exhibits were not handed to Inspector Azizan Said. Three exhibits got lost. Chief Inspector Azizan Said was not called as a witness. Thus there was a serious break in the chain of evidence. [41] First, by way of a general observation, I am of the view that, in a drug trafficking case what is important is that it must be proved that it is the substance that was recovered that was sent to the chemist for analysis and it is that same substance that is found to be heroin or cannabis etc and it is in respect of that substance that an accused is charged with trafficking. So, the chain of evidence is more important for the period from the time of recovery until the completion of the analysis by the chemist. Even then it does not necessarily mean that if the exhibit is passed from one person to another, every one of them must be called to give evidence of the handing over from one person to another and if there is a break, even for one day, the case falls. There should be no confusion between what has to be proved and the method of proving it. What has to be proved is that it is the substance that was recovered that was analysed by the chemist and found to be heroin, cannabis etc, and it is for the trafficking of that same substance that the accused is charged with. [42] The proof of the chain of evidence is only a method of proving that fact. The fact that there is ‘a gap’, does not necessarily mean that that fact is not proved. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be a gap in the chain of evidence. But, if for example, during that ‘gap’ the exhibits are sealed, numbered with identification numbers, there is no evidence of tempering, there is nothing that would give rise to a doubt that that exhibit is the exhibit that was recovered in that case and that was analysed by the chemist, the fact that there is a gap, in the circumstances of the case, may not give rise to any doubt of that fact. [43] The second period is from the time that it was received back from the chemist until it is produced in court. In my view, the chain of evidence is less important during this second period. This is because, as far as I am aware, there is no law that the exhibit recovered must be produced in court and if not the prosecution’s case must necessarily fall. It may or it may not, again depending on the facts and the circumstances of each case. Even in a murder trial, the dead body is not produced in court. In Sunny Ang v Public Prosecutor [1966] 2 MLJ 195 (FC) the body of the victim was not even recovered, yet the accused was convicted of murder. What the prosecution has to prove is that a particular person had died and the accused had caused his death. The death of the victim is not proved by looking at his remains in court, but by evidence of witnesses, the medical report, the identity card, the photographs and so on. Sama ada kegagalan mengambil dua botol spesimen urin OKT telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. [25] Pembelaan melalui peguambela terdahulu merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Rayuan, Noor Shariful Rizal Noor Zawawi V PP [2017] 4 CLJ 434 yang mengatakan GPKKM dan PTKPN ini mempunyai kuatkuasa undang-undang dan kegagalan polis mengikutnya menyebabkan OKT gagal mendapat perbicaraan yang adil. Menurut pembelaan, OKT sepatutnya dilepas dan dibebaskan kerana kegagalan mematuhi garis panduan dan perintah tetap ini telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. Hal ini kerana OKT hanya diarahkan memilih satu botol sahaja oleh SP4 sedangkan kedua-dua instrumen di atas menyatakan OKT hendaklah diberikan dua botol untuk diisi air kencing. [26] Pendakwaan sebaliknya berhujah balas dengan membawakan juga kes Mahkamah Rayuan yang diputuskan terkemudian daripada kes Noor Shariful Rizal iaitu kes Ahmad Syahir bin Mohd Fauzi lwn Pendakwa Raya [2023] MLJU 2272 dan kes Public Prosecutor v Samsul Arifin Bin Bakar [2020] 7 CLJ 503. [27] Isu ini sudah selesai apabila merujuk kepada penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes PP v. Ahmad Saiful Islam Mohamad [2023] 2 CLJ 714 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah menegur YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi kerana tidak mengikut prinsip di dalam kes terkini Mahkamah Rayuan dan memilih untuk mengikut dapatan kes Mahkamah Rayuan yang sebelumnya. Mahkamah Rayuan adalah mahkamah terakhir bagi kes-kes yang dimulakan pendakwaannya di Mahkamah Majistret maka keputusan terkini Mahkamah Rayuan hendaklah digunapakai kerana ianya memansuhkan kes-kes terdahulu. Sekiranya tidak diikut akan menyebabkan ketidakpastian undang-undang yang tiada berkesudahan. Petikan berikut adalah dirujuk :- [43] For this appeal, when two decisions of the Court of Appeal conflict on a point of law, the later decision prevails over the earlier decision. If the subordinate courts can choose either decision of the Court of Appeal, there will be no finality to the issue and no certainty in the law. This would defeat the purpose of judicial precedent and stare decisis. [44] Judicial hierarchy must be observed for the orderly development of legal rules and for the courts and lawyers to regulate their affairs, and to avoid chaos and misapprehensions in the judicial system. … [50] It is therefore our position that the failure of the police to collect the respondent's urine sample in two bottles is not fatal to the prosecution's case. On this issue, we disagree with the decision of the learned HCJ. [28] Berdasarkan kepada ulasan di atas, saya memutuskan bahawa satu botol sampel urin yang diambil daripada OKT adalah memadai untuk mendirikan kes pendakwaan. OKT tidak boleh dilepas dan dibebaskan semata-mata kegagalan pihak polis mengikuti garis panduan di dalam GPKKM ataupun PTKPN kerana kedua-dua instrumen ini tidak mempunyai kuatkuasa undang-undang lantas sama sekali tidaklah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan. Sama ada anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(k) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah berjaya dibangkitkan pendakwaan. [29] Adalah menjadi satu KEWAJIPAN undang-undang untuk Mahkamah membangkitkan pemakaian apa jua anggapan di bawah ADB 1952 sekiranya pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan apa-apa fakta yang diperlukan yang boleh membangkitkan anggapan tersebut. Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Low Kai Gie v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 MLJ 476 ; [2019] 1 LNS 1807 menyatakan sepertimana berikut :- [8] Attan bin Abdul Ghani was a case on section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961. In dealing with this provision, Sharma J said: "Once it is proved that the gratification has been paid or received then in the words of section 14 of the Act "Such gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given or received corruptly... " The presumption at once arises under the section. This presumption is a presumption of law and it is obligatory on the court to raise it in every proceeding for an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Act provided it is proved that the gratification had been paid, given or received." (emphasis added) [9] In the context of a criminal proceeding under section 39B(1)(a) of the DDA, once it is proved that the accused was in mens rea possession of the drug, it is obligatory on the part of the court to raise the presumption of trafficking under section 37(da). Obligatory means compulsory: See the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Eleventh Edition, Revised). [30] Jelas berdasarkan kepada kes di atas, biarpun kes yang dirujuk adalah suatu kes rasuah, namun prinsip yang digariskan itu adalah terpakai kepada kesemua kes jenayah juga. Biarpun kes ini adalah suatu kesalahan mengedar dadah di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952, prinsip di dalam kes rasuah Attan bin Abdul Ghani ini telah diterima dengan jelas oleh Mahkamah Rayuan. Maka ianya diputuskan turut terpakai kepada kes ini. [31] Memandangkan pemakaian anggapan ini adalah diwajibkan, mahkamah ini telah meneliti keterangan sedia ada sama ada adakah keperluan untuk membangkitkan anggapan ini telahpun dipenuhi di dalam kes pendakwaan. Untuk itu kita perlu melihat kembali kepada intipati anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(k) ADB 1952 sepertimana diperturunkan semula berikut :-