M Roshasbuni Sani bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): M Roshasbuni Sani Bin Mohamed

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan
• YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

• The appellant was charged under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 22,082 grams of Methamphetamine found concealed in two specially constructed compartments in a Mitsubishi Pajero he was driving.
• Police surveillance led to the stopping of the vehicle, and following a caution and questioning, the appellant allegedly pointed out the hidden compartments containing 30 packages of the drug.
• At trial, the appellant denied knowledge of the drugs and claimed he had merely borrowed the vehicle from one Mohd Anuar (who could not be traced) for a trip to Penang; the High Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment, prompting this appeal.

• Whether the appellant's cautioned statement (Exhibit P24) was inadmissible for non-compliance with the exact statutory wording under section 37B(1)(b), and if so, whether the information leading to discovery remained admissible under sections 8(2) and 27(1) of the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the trial judge erred by applying a "double presumption" (knowledge under section 37(h) and trafficking based on quantity) contrary to established authority.
• Whether the prosecution was required to prove exclusive possession/control of the vehicle and drugs, and whether failure to produce the alleged true owner/borrower (Mohd Anuar) warranted an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.

• The Court held that whilst Exhibit P24 was inadmissible due to reasonable doubt as to whether the exact statutory caution wording was used, the information given and conduct of pointing out the compartments were independently admissible under sections 8(2) and 27(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, and this evidence, combined with section 37(h) presumption, sufficiently proved knowledge.
• The Court found no double presumption was invoked; only section 37(h) was applied for knowledge, while trafficking (transporting for distribution) was established through irresistible inference from proven facts (large quantity, specially constructed compartments, packaging), consistent with Ong Ah Chuan.
• The Court held that possession need not be exclusive to the accused (citing Denish Madhavan), no adverse inference arose from the prosecution's failure to produce the absconding Mohd Anuar (as there was no suppression, per Munusamy), and the appellant failed to rebut the section 37(h) presumption on a balance of probabilities; the appeal against conviction and sentence was accordingly dismissed.