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

17
[42] We will now reproduce the definition of the word “trafficking” as
set out in section 2 of the DDA. It contains a gamut of acts that constitutes
“trafficking”:
“ ‘trafficking’ includes the doing of any of the following acts, that is
to say, manufacturing, importing, exporting, keeping, concealing,
buying, selling, giving, receiving, storing, administering,
transporting, carrying, sending, delivering, procuring, supplying or
distributing any dangerous drug otherwise than under the authority
of this Act or the regulations made under the Act.”
[43] The word “transporting” was employed by the learned High
Court Judge to describe the acts of the appellant in transporting the drugs
and with full knowledge of trafficking in those drugs. His Lordship also held
that the quantity of the drugs indicated that it was not meant for the
appellant’s own consumption. At page 24 of the appeal record, this was
what his Lordship said:
“Seterusnya Mahkamah ini berpuashati bahawa Tertuduh pada
ketika itu sedang membawa (transporting) ganja tersebut dengan
sepenuh pengetahuannya bagi tujuan mengagih atau mengedar
ganja sebanyak 4,089 gram. Jumlah ganja yang banyak itu iaitu 20
kali lebih besar dari peruntukan statutory juga menunjukkan ganja
tersebut bukan untuk kegunaan Tertuduh sendiri.”
[44] The evidence irresistibly points to the appellant transporting the
drugs in the carrier basket of the motorcycle ridden by him. That would be a
clear cut case of trafficking.
[45] The learned deputy public prosecutor submitted that even if
there was a misdirection by the learned High Court Judge, the conviction in