1. Yang Arif, my name is Dennis Chung and I will be representing the Public Prosecutor
regarding a case involving 2 defendants accused of Drug trafficking which is an offence
under section 39B(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 read together with section 34 of the
Penal Code. If successfully convicted, both defendants shall be punished on conviction with
death. This is the pleading submission from the prosecution side, without further due if it
pleases the court the prosecution side would like to begin. There are 4 grounds on which
the prosecution would like to submit on. These 4 elements constitute the key elements of
drug trafficking by both defendants, specifically 1) Custody and Control which in this case
the custody and control of Exhibit P5 where the suitcase that contained the illegal drug and
was carried by the 1st defendant but belonged to the 2nd defendant. 2) Knowledge which in
this case would be the actual knowledge of both defendant regarding the 180g of heroin
inside Exhibit P5. 3) The act of trafficking which in this case would be keeping the 180g of
heroin in exhibit P5 and also concealing it by avoiding the bag scanner. 4) Common intention
which would clarify that both defendants had the same intention to traffic the 180g of
heroin by using Exhibit P5 as the container.
The first element that the prosecution would like to begin with is custody and
control. According to both of the defendants, they went different directions as soon as they
got off from the taxi. The 1st defendant took a longer route to reach MAS 1st class counter
and checked in Exhibit P5 without scanning it. The 2nd defendant then went to the bag
scanner and had Exhibit P6 scanned before checking it in at another MAS 1st Class counter.
The fact that the 1st and 2nd defendant had the choice whether or not to scan Exhibit P5 and
P6 on their own accord shows that they actually had custody and control over Exhibit P6
and P5 which contained the 180g of heroin. According to section 37d of the dangerous
drugs act, any person who is found to have had in his custody or under his control, anything
whatsoever containing any dangerous drugs, which in this case would be the suitcase
Exhibit P5 which contained the 180g of heroin, shall, until the contrary is proven, be
deemed to have been in possession and have known the nature of such drugs. Therefore,
the prosecution believes this would amount to the custody and control of Exhibit P5 which
contained the 180g of heroin.
Following then, knowledge can be presumed once custody and control is proven by
virtue of section 37d of the act. However in this case, even by just looking at the fact of the
case itself, it is unlikely that the accused did not know he was in possession of the 180g of
heroin. The fact states that both defendants shared a room in a hotel before heading to
KLIA. According to the 2nd defendant, he replaced his old suitcase with Exhibit P5 and
discarded the old suitcase by leaving it at the hotel. If what was said is true, this would
suggest that in the process of shifting his belongings from the old suitcase to Exhibit P5, he
would have clearly identified all the contents of the suitcase. Furthermore, if Exhibit P5 did
not contain illegal substances, there was no reason for him to have avoided the bag scanner
before checking in at the counter. This would give rise to an inescapable inference that the
accused must have known that Exhibit P5 contained illegal drugs. Furthermore, both

2. defendants were only accusing each other as facts adduced on the defendants side of the
case only consist of accusation of one and another. None of them actually brought up any
facts which would complement each other such as the suspicion of the origins of the drug.
Therefore, the prosecution strongly believes that both defendants had actual knowledge of
the 180g of heroin in Exhibit P5.
Next, referring to section 37 (da)(1) of the Act, any person who is found in
possession of 15g or more in weight of heroin, otherwise than in accordance with the
authority of this Act or any other written law, shall be presumed, until contrary is proved, to
be trafficking in the said drug. The actual amount of drug that the defendant was found to
be in possession is 180g, which critically exceeds the quantity allowed which is 15g. As
mentioned earlier, since there is custody and control of said drug, both defendant can safely
be presumed to be in possession of said drug, and hence, the trafficking of the drug. Next,
according to section 2 of the Act, trafficking includes the doing of an extensive list of act,
which in our case, mainly keeping and concealing. Keeping can be illustrated by the 2nd
defendant where the 180g of heroin were kept in exhibit P5 which belonged to him. On the
other hand, concealing can be demonstrated by the 1st defendant where he avoided the bag
scanner before checking in at the counter.
The last component to be discussed is the common intention between the two
defendants. In the case of Wan Yurillhami bin Wan Yaacob & Anor v Public Prosecutor, it is
ruled that the existence of common intention is a question of fact. According to the facts of
this case, the 1st defendant took a longer route compared to the 2nd defendant just to reach
MAS 1st class counter which was the same location they both would have ended up at. It
seems to the prosecution that this is highly coincidental that the 1st defendant with Exhibit
P5 which contained the illegal substance was trying to avoid the bag scanner before
checking it in while the 2nd defendant was diverting the attention by scanning Exhibit P6
which did not contain any illegal substances before checking it in.
According to ASP Omar, he approached them and asked for identifications. This
shows that both defendants were actually together during the events that took place at the
bag scanner and the check in. Both defendant must have acted in a way that is so suspicious
that it caught the ASP’s attention to watch their movement since their arrival even though
the 1st defendant took the longer route to MAS 1st class counter which is the same check in
point for both defendant since they are taking the same flight on the same day as the facts
states that the 1st defendant purchased their first class ticket on the same day they were
caught. Both defendants were then asked to follow ASP Omar into the checking room
together with their Suitcases Exhibit P5 and P6. When ASP Omar requested both defendants
to open their suitcases, the prosecution find it suspiciously odd that Exhibit P5 that was
carried by the 1st defendant actually belongs to the 2nd defendant and Exhibit P6 that was
carried by the 2nd defendant belonged to the 1st defendant. These were exact facts
adduced by the defendant at that point of time which clearly shows both defendants were

3. trying to protect themselves by denying ownership of the suitcases. Odd as it seems, there
are certain facts adduced by the defendant that really caught the prosecutions attention.
According to the 2nd defendant, he claims that the 1st defendant inserted the drug when he
took a shower before leaving for KLIA and that the 1st defendant never took any shower
after him. On the other hand, according to the 1st defendant, he claims that he took a
shower after the 2nd defendant and also accusing the 2nd defendant of owning the drug. He
also claims that the 2nd defendant never owned an old suitcase. The prosecution finds all
these statements adduced by both defendants very contradicting with one and another
which should not be the case since all these events actually happened during their stay in
the same hotel in the same room. The prosecution believes that this is no longer mere
coincidence and more of a cluster of dishonesty to protect themselves before and after they
were arrested as the fact clearly shows both defendants having a common intention, which
is trafficking the 180g of heroin.
For that, the prosecution rests.