632 Malayan Law Journal [2016] 2 MLJ [18] Following Mahdi’s case, we agreed with learned counsel that the preconditions in sub-s (2) must be complied with before the witness statement of SP3 can be admitted as evidence. We also found that as the witness statements of four other witnesses, namely D/Kpl Shafiee bin Ali (SP1 – photographer); D/Kpl Zarinah bt Othman (SP2 – Store Keeper); SP4; and L/Kpl Mohd Arif Akmal bin Marzuki (SP5 – one of arresting officers) equally did not comply with the same provision of the law, they too, are inadmissible. [19] On the same first ground of appeal, learned counsel submitted that the oral testimony of SP3 suffers from the following infirmities: (a) there is no evidence that the chemist has read the written statement in open court under oath; (b) there is no record that the written statement has been marked by the court; (c) that there is no notation that the chemist has identified her written statement. [20] Having perused the record of appeal, we found merits in learned counsel’s complaint. We found that the chemist (SP3) did not read her written statement in the open court under oath, her written statement was not marked as an exhibit by the court and the witness statement was not identified by SP3 in the open court during the trial. There was an attempt made by the prosecution to refer her witness statement and to deduce her evidence as in the witness statement regarding her analysis, nevertheless this attempt made by the prosecution was disallowed by the learned trial judge as can be seen at p 74 AR Vol 1: A B C D E F TPR: For the envelope that you receive in 25th May 2012, when the analysis was done by you? SP3: The analysis of the contain for P14 was done by me. I start the analysis on 11th of June 2012 and I complete the analysis on 18th of July 2012. G TPR: From the date you receive the envelope from Insp Amiruddin until the date you done the analysis, where the envelope was kept? SP3: The envelope was kept … H MAH: TPR this all already in witness statement. I rasa tak perlu tanya soalan ini sebab sudah ada dalam penyata saksi. It repetitions. [21] After SP3 witness statement was found to be inadmissible for non compliance with s 402 B (2) (b) of the CPC, what was left on record as regard to the evidence of the chemist regarding her analysis on the impugned drugs was that she received the exhibits from Insp Amiruddin bin Abdullah, the investigating officer (SP14) and that she found the substance to contain 251.66g of methamphetamine after her analysis (see p 72 of AR vol 1). We I