14.2 Chu Tak Fai V PP [2007] 1 MLJ 201 “[18] In the instant case, the presumption in s 37(j) of the Act which reads: when any substance suspected of being a dangerous drug has been seized and such substance is contained in a number not less than ten per centum of such receptacles and if such analysis 11 establishes that such samples are all of the same nature and description, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the contents of all the receptacles were of the same nature and description as the samples so analysed and if such analysis establishes that such samples consist of or contain a dangerous drug, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, the contents of all the receptacles consist of or contain the same proportion of such drug. is obviously inapplicable. It is clear from the evidence that the chemist had analysed all the 17 packages, i.e. 100% or the whole quantity of the whitish substances handed to him and thereby making it unnecessary for the chemist and the prosecution to rely on s 37(j) of the Act. In Balachandran v PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301 (Ahmad Fairuz Chief Justice, PS Gill FCJ, Augustine Paul JCA (as he then was), Augustine Paul JCA (as he then was) in delivering the judgment of the Federal Court said at p 313: The thrust of the first submission of learned counsel becomes a relevant matter for consideration only if the chemist had not analysed all the substances handed to him. The chemist had testified on the net weight of the pinkish substance in each of the five packages followed by the weight of monoacetylmorphines obtain from each package. This indicates that he had analysed all of the pinkish substances in each of the packages. It is confirmed by his evidence that the pinkish substances in the five packages were powdered during analysis. This make it patent 12 that the chemist had analysed all the substances handed to him thereby making it unnecessary for the prosecution to rely on s 37(j). See also Looi Kow Chai & anor v PP [2003] 2 MLJ 65. [19] In any event it is our view that the ten per centum stipulated in s 37(j) refers to the number of receptacles and not the total weight of the drug found or the total amount or weight of the samples taken for analysis. Section 37(j) only requires the taking of samples from ten per centum of the total number of the receptacles and not the drug. It is for the chemist to determine the sufficiency of the weight of the drug required for the analysis. This has been lucidly explained in Gunalan a/l Ramachandran & Ors v PP [2004] 4 MLJ 489 (CA) with which we agree.” [15] Mengenai keterangan ahli kimia, kami merujuk kes Mahkamah Rayuan PP v Suzie Adrina Ahmad [2006] 3 CLJ 889 di mana di m.s. menyatakan: “Looking at the evidence of the chemist in its totality, we found it difficult to accept the doubt of the learned judge at the close of the prosecution case to be a doubt arrived at on rational basis. PW5 was a highly qualified chemist who had served the Department of Chemistry for 22 years and had testified as an expert witness in many court cases. 13 As to how a trial court should approach the evidence of a chemist, we wish to advert to the judgment of this court in Munusamy v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492 here in a passage at p 496F, Muhamed Azmi SCJ on behalf of the court put in focus the function of the chemist in a trial of this nature: We are therefore of the view, that in this type of cases where the opinion of the chemist is confined only to the elementary nature and identity of substance, the court is entitled to accept the opinion of the expert on its face value, unless it is inherently incredible or the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible evidence is given by the chemist to support his opinion, there is no necessity for him to go into details of what he did in the laboratory, step by step. Two things are implicit in that passage. First, unless the evidence is so inherently incredible that no reasonable person can believe it to be true, it should be accepted as prima facie evidence. Secondly, so long as the evidence is credible, there is no necessity for the chemist to show in detail what he did in his laboratory. In our view, the evidence of the chemist in this case was more than sufficient as basis to call for the defence, granted that all the other ingredients of the offence had been successfully proved. The evidence of the chemist must be looked at in its totality. Seen in its totality, the evidence of the chemist in this case is not sketchy at all. 14 There is no need for him to say what instrument he used for the purpose of the analysis or that the instrument was in good working condition as we have to assume until the contrary is shown that he had the proper instrument to carry out his work. In this case he had even gone to the extent of giving a margin of error and had given the benefit of the doubt to the respondent.” [16] Isu seterusnya fakta jual-beli dadah antara SP4 dengan Perayu tidak dibuktikan. Peguam Perayu berhujah bahawa pihak pendakwaan tidak membawa keterangan rekod daripada syarikat talipon mengenai panggilan yang dibuat dan diterima antara talipon bimbit SP4 dengan Perayu. Pendakwaan juga gagal membuktikan apa-apa salinan foto pesanan ringkas antara talipon bimbit Perayu dengan SP4. [17] Kami juga menolak hujah ini. Keterangan SP4 adalah “consistent” dari awal hingga akhir. Pertemuan secara bersemuka berlaku pada 23.7.2014 di mana sumber telah memperkenalkan Perayu kepada SP4. Persetujuan jual-beli dadah dicapai. Tawar-menawar harga dipersetujui. Jumlah dadah Cannabis sebanyak 3 kilogram juga dipersetujui serta tarikh, tempat dan masa serahan ditetapkan iaitu 25.7.2014 jam 10.00 malam. Lebih kurang pukul 11.40 malam apabila Perayu gagal ke tempat yang dipersetujui, SP4 menghantar pesanan ringkas kepada Perayu bertanyakan kedudukan urusan jual-beli tersebut. Perayu menjawab dan meminta SP4 “standby” kerana Perayu ingin menghantar isterinya pulang ke rumah terlebih dahulu. [18] Lebih kurang pukul 12.00 malam, Perayu tiba di tempat yang dipersetujui dengan menaiki sebuah motosikal. SP4 bertanya di mana 15 “barang”, Perayu memberitahu di dalam raga motosikal beliau. SP4 telah pergi melihat dan memeriksa “barang” tersebut di dalam raga motosikal Perayu iaitu 3 ketulan mampat. SP4 memberi isyarat, tangkapan dan rampasan dilakukan oleh anggota serbuan. Daripada pemeriksaan badan Perayu pula, dijumpai satu ketulan kecil disyaki ganja/Cannabis daripada poket seluar Perayu. [19] Penemuan fakta dan undang-undang oleh Hakim bicara dapat dilihat dalam Penghakiman bertulis beliau (rujuk perenggan 17 m.s. 22 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1): “Berdasarkan keputusan kes Wan Mohd Azman Hassan (supra) keterangan SP4 yang tidak dicabar kredibiliti dan kebolehpercayaannya perlulah diterima oleh Mahkamah ini. Jelasnya, semasa ditahan, 3 ketulan mampat bahan yang disyaki dadah ganja ada di dalam milikan Perayu untuk ditawarkan sebagai barang jualan kepada SP4.” [20] Peguam Perayu berhujah bahawa pihak pendakwan gagal membuktikan perhubungan talipon bimbit dan pesanan ringkas antara Perayu dengan SP4. Seharusnya pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan bukti rekod percakapan talipon dan pesanan ringkas tersebut melalui syarikat telekomunikasi yang berkenaan. [21] Kami menolak hujah ini. Apa yang dibangkitkan oleh peguam Perayu, beliau memerlukan pihak pendakwaan membuktikan kes mereka bukan 16 melampaui tahap keraguan yang munasabah tetapi melampaui sebarang keraguan. Hujah ini bertentangan dengan prinsip undang-undang mantap. [22] Isu terakhir ialah watak “Madi” bukanlah “fictitious”: Peguam Perayu terpelajar telah berhujah bahawa watak “Madi” telah ditimbulkan semasa saksi pendakwaan kelima (SP5) iaitu isteri Perayu. SP5 mengesahkan bahawa Perayu mempunyai seorang kawan bernama Madi, juga tinggal lebih kurang sekampung dengan mereka. Watak “Madi” juga telah dicadangkan kepada SP4 sebagai “sumber” tetapi dinafikan. [23] Hakim bicara dalam Penghakiman bertulis beliau di m.s. 31 Rekod Rayuan Jld. 1 perenggan 34 hingga perenggan 38 telah mengolah pembelaan Perayu bahawa “Madi” yang berurusan dengan SP4. Hakim bicara telah menimbangkan hujahan bahawa Perayu hanyalah “kambing hitam” apabila “Madi” lari melepaskan diri. [24] Adalah menjadi undang-undang mantap seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Hakim bicara bahawa keterangan “Agent Provocateur” (AP) iaitu SP4 perlu diterima. Kes Mahkamah Persekutuan yang dirujuk oleh Hakim bicara, Wan Mohd Azman Hassan v PP [2010] 4 CLJ 529 jelas menyatakan: “[15] Under s 40A of the Act, the evidence of the agent provocateur cannot be excluded in the exercise of judicial discretion (see Evidence Practice and Procedure 3rd edn. by Augustine Paul). An otherwise admissible evidence such as this one under s 40A of the Act does not become inadmissible merely because it had been improperly or unfairly obtained. Section 40A(2) of the Act affirms this admission 17 notwithstanding any other laws, written or otherwise, to the contrary. He may thus relate the full story of what happened in his negotiations with the drugs seller and any statements made by the latter to him shall be admissible in evidence.” [25] Daripada keterangan SP4(AP) adalah jelas beliau telah berhubung dengan Perayu melalui talipon pada mulanya dan diikuti dengan perjumpaan bersemuka, di mana urusan tawar-menawar, jumlah dadah Cannabis, tempat, tarikh dan masa penghantaran ditetapkan. [26] Keterangan Perayu perlu diuji dengan kes pendakwaan. Pembelaan Perayu adalah bahawa Perayu berada di rumahnya pada 25.7.2014. Lebih kurang pukul 11.30 malam, Perayu menerima panggilan daripada “Madi” meminta Perayu datang ke rumahnya. Perayu menunggang motosikal isterinya, tiba di rumah “Madi” lebih kurang pukul 11.45 malam. “Madi” mengajak Perayu untuk berjumpa rakan “Madi”. “Madi” menunggang motosikal sementara Perayu membonceng. Perayu nampak “Madi” membawa satu beg plastik yang diletakkan ke dalam raga motosikal Perayu. Apabila tiba di pekan Parit Buntar, “Madi” telah turun dari motosikal pergi ke arah sebuah kenderaan Isuzu lebih kurang 10 kaki dari motosikal. Perayu masih berada di atas motosikal, ketika ini Perayu diserbu dan ditangkap. “Madi” melarikan diri. [27] Pada penelitian kami, watak “Madi” sememangnya telah diutarakan di peringkat pendakwaan. Pembelaan tidak membawa masuk percakapan beramaran Perayu bahawa “Madi” telah diberitahu kepada Pegawai Penyiasat. Tidak ada keterangan juga sama ada butir-butir peribadi “Madi” 18 telah diberikan atau tidak. Tanpa keterangan lanjut mengenai “Madi”, Hakim bicara adalah betul dalam dapatan beliau mengenai kes pembelaan. [28] Dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Teng Howe Sing v PP [2009] 3 CLJ 733 diputuskan seperti berikut: “[30] …On this point we would like to refer to the case of PP v Badrulsham bin Baharom [1988] 2 MLJ 58, wherein Lim Beng Choon J at p 591 said: So we are left with nothing more than the bare assertion of the accused that it was Noor Azlan who asked him to collect the bag on behalf of the former and that the accused himself had no knowledge of the contents of P3. If that be the case, one would hardly imagine that he would not have told either PW3 or PW5 at the railway station at Alor Setar at the time of his arrest that P3 belonged to Noor Azlan instead of saying that there was nothing in P3. … [32] Applying the principle in Badrulsham’s case to the facts of the instant case, the learned trial judge was correct to conclude that the appellant has two opportunities to provide information about “Ho Seng”, i.e. at the time of his arrest and five days later during the recording of his cautioned statement but he failed to do so. We are therefore of the view that in the circumstances, the appellant’s failure to provide relevant information about “Ho Seng” for the police to carry 19 out a thorough investigation in the probability of his defence, entitled the learned trial judge to disbelieve him.” [29] Atas alasan-alasan di atas, kami bersependapat bahawa rayuan Perayu tidak bermerit. Keterangan adalah kukuh. Sabitan adalah selamat. Rayuan ditolak. Sabitan dan hukuman dikekalkan. t.t. MOHTARUDIN BIN BAKI 30 Julai 2018 Counsel for the Appellant: Mohd Sariman bin Mat Serat Tetuan Sariman & Goik Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 1668, 1st Floor, Jalan Atas 14300 Nibong Tebal Seberang Perai Selatan Pulau Pinang Counsel for the Respondent: Muhammad Azmi bin Mashud Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara Putrajaya