[2017] 6 MLJ A B C D Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor (Tengku Maimun JCA) 111 appellant and the manner the drugs were concealed, we find that the learned trial judge had made a correct inference that the appellant knew of the drugs in the bag. [31] Insofar as the finding at the close of the defence case is concerned, while we accept learned counsel’s submission that the learned trial judge failed to make a specific finding on whether the appellant had rebutted the presumption of trafficking under s 37(da) of the Act, we disagree with learned counsel that the conviction ought to be quashed on this ground. In our judgment, the omission of the learned trial judge to make a finding on whether or not the presumption of trafficking has been rebutted by the appellant on a balance of probabilities, in the circumstances of the case, resulted in no miscarriage of justice to the appellant and did not vitiate the conviction. On our part, we find that a case of trafficking has been made out by the prosecution under s 2 of the Act premised on the evidence that the appellant was carrying, keeping and transporting the drugs from New Delhi to Johor Bahru. Whether the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the defence E [32] Moving on to the complaint that the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the appellant’s defence, we find that this ground is devoid of any merit. The learned trial judge addressed his mind to the aspect of the defence concerning the character George wherein His Lordship made the following observations (appeal record Vol 1 pp 29–30): F … no particulars of the person named George were revealed in Court … She could not remember his hand-phone number and did not save the number in the ‘contact’. … The prosecution tendered the ‘Laporan Forensik Telefon’ marked as P35A which was prepared by Forensic Department of the Customs Department for purposes of ascertaining call logs, the list of phone numbers and the short messaging service (‘SMS’). The Court observed that at p 8 there was the named ‘Boshoff, Jaco my baby/M’ where the accused must have sent the SMS to ‘Boshoff Jaco’ to inform him that the accused had just landed at Johor. There was an SMS sent by the accused to ‘Boshoff Jaco’ which was ‘They are opening at customs. They unpacked my bag scanning again-Monty. Looks like they gonna cut open. Monty help. They opened my bag. Help. They open bag completely now. Talk 2 me. I dono baby. I love u remember that. MONTY!!!. These smses were sent out to someone named ‘Boshoff Jaco’ whose identity was unknown as no particulars were given by the accused. All the above smses must have been sent after the accused landed at Senai airport and sending smses to ‘Boshoff Jaco’ when SP7 was trying to prise opened the trolley bag (P13A). The fact that the accused was seen sending smses to someone was confirmed by SP7. The cumulative reading of all the smses sent by the accused to someone named ‘Boshoff Jaco’ or be it ‘George’ gave an irresistible inference that the accused knew inside the trolley bag (P13A) were drugs and she was rather apprehensive in the manner the trolley bag was been thoroughly inspected and would lead to the discovery of the hidden drugs at the sides wall of the trolley bag. G H I