110 Malayan Law Journal [2017] 6 MLJ Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 64 where he submitted that the decision has since been consistently considered as obsolete and incorrectly decided. (In Ong Ah Chuan, the Privy Council rejected a challenge to a Singaporean statute which provided the mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers.) A OUR FINDINGS B Whether the learned trial judge misdirected himself in handling the presumptions [29] Having perused the grounds of judgment, we find that the learned trial judge had not misdirected himself in handling the presumptions under the Act. At the end of the prosecution case, the learned trial judge made a finding of mens rea possession and trafficking under s 37(da) of the Act. This approach is not wrong in law. For ease of reference we reproduce below the finding of the learned trial judge on the element of possession (appeal record Vol 1 pp 17–19): … the prosecution has proved that through the evidence of SP5 who was on duty at the Senai airport on the night of the incident and she scanned the trolley bag (‘P13A’) saw suspicious images on the left and right sides of the wall of P13A. The trolley bag P13A was placed on the counter for an inspection inside the bag to be done. … finally P13A was prised opened by SP7 with the consent of the accused. When the said bag was prised opened, SP7 felt on the left and (right) sides of the bag were lumps and the accused was asked to remove all her clothes from inside the trolley bag … The accused was seen … as if she was sending out sms to someone. … Based on the direct evidence of SP5, SP6, SP7 and SP8 and indeed the luggage tag (P13A (59)(i) on the trolley bag (P13A) was in the name of the accused. The accused was seen pushing the trolley bag (P13A) from the luggage carousel to the Special Passenger Inspection Unit and to the scanning machine. The Court was also appraised of the fact that one of the items marked as ‘B6’ which was a short pant and ‘G& (sic) long pant retrieved from the trolley bag (P13A) has DNA profiling which was consistent with the blood specimen marked as ‘LKY3’ which came from the same source ie from the accused. … The question of whether the accused had the requisite knowledge of the drugs in the trolley bag (P13A), reference was made to the case of Gunalan a/l Ramachandran & Ors [2004] 4 MLJ 489 which states that ‘knowledge was to be inferred from the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case’. The prosecution evidence showed that the drugs were concealed in the aluminium foil glued to the wall of the trolley bag (P13A) and was retrieved with some difficulty. In Teh Hock Leng v Public Prosecutor [2008] 4 CLJ 764, the court held that the drugs were cunningly concealed may indicate the intention to avoid detection and thereby exhibit knowledge. [30] We agree with the learned trial judge that the appellant had custody and control of the drugs. As for knowledge, it is trite that proof of knowledge has to be by way of inference from the proven circumstances. From the conduct of the C D E F G H I