rayuan jenayah no: a-05-120-2009 antara mohd kamal bin osman

12
the carrier basket, the Court held that the second accused was in
possession of the offending drugs by virtue of section 37(d) of the DDA. In
regard to knowledge, at page 194 of the report, KC Vohrah J had this to
say:
“Why would the motor cyclist, the accused, attempt to escape unless
he knew the package he was carrying was non-innocent. There is no
dispute that the red plastic bag was in the motor cycle basket
between his legs. In my view no doubt has been created on the
prosecution’s case as regards the police identification, the accused
being the motor cyclist, he attempting to run away, and the discovery
of the bag of drugs in the motor cycle basket between his legs
affirming that he had control of the drugs.”
[29] Here, there was evidence that both SP4 and SP5 saw the
appellant riding the said motorcycle with a black coloured plastic bag
(exhibit “P5C”) containing the four (4) compressed slabs of plant materials
suspected to be cannabis for quite a distance and tailing the appellant
before he was apprehended at the place mentioned in the charge. The
appellant also attempted to abscond when confronted by SP4 and the
police party. The excerpts of the evidence of SP4 at pages 44 to 45 of the
appeal record are solid evidence of the appellant’s attempt at absconding:
“Sasaran (referring to the appellant) cuba hendak melarikan diri
dengan cuba membelok motosikal keluar semula ke jalan. Saya
berjaya menahan sasaran (referring to the appellant). Pada masa
yang sama pasukan bermotosikal pun sampai dan membantu saya.”