[2016] 2 MLJ A B C D E F G 631 [15] As regard to the first ground of appeal, learned counsel argued that the written statement of the chemist (SP3), the most important witness suffers from defect in that s 402B(2)(b) of the CPC had not been complied with. From SP3’s witness statement, we observed that there was no declaration that it was true to the best of her knowledge and belief. Learned counsel argued that this omission is fatal as it is mandatory. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mahdi Keramatviyarsagh Khodavirdi v Public Prosecution [2015] MLJU 14; [2015] 3 CLJ 336 which decision was later affirmed by the Federal Court. [16] In the above cited case, the Court of Appeal had decided as follows: [13] We have perused the notes of proceedings and we found no indication that SP1 had read out the witness statement. We further found that the witness statement of SP1 did not bear his signature and neither did the witness statement contain a declaration as required under para (2)(b) of s 402B of the CPC. Hence, the preconditions set out in para (2) for the admissibility of the evidence had not been complied with, rendering the witness statement of SP1 inadmissible. Consequently, there was no evidence on the nature or contents and the weight of the capsules. The subject matter of the charge, namely the dangerous drugs, methamphetamine had not been proven. (Emphasis is mine). [14] The fact that SP1 was cross-examined cannot derogate from the legal position or the application of s 402B of the CPC. As regards the rules of procedure and evidence in criminal law, no default by the defence and no waiver or admission could be held against him. Any default, waiver or consent cannot supersede the written law (see Chah Siew Kok v Public Prosecutor [1987] 1 CLJ 386; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 518; Ooi Lean Chai v Public Prosecutor [1991] 2 MLJ 552; [1991] 2 CLJ 1304; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 337; Alcontara Ambross Anthony v Public Prosecutor [1996] 1 MLJ 209; [1996] 1 CLJ 705; Fan Yew Teng v Public Prosecutor [1971] 2 MLJ 271; [1971] 1 LNS 29). The inadmissible evidence of SP1 thus remained inadmissible notwithstanding any waiver or consent by the appellant. (Emphasis added.) [17] H Abuchi Ngwoke v Public Prosecutor (Kamardin Hashim JCA) And now, s 402 B of the CPC provides as follows: 402 B (1) In any criminal proceedings, a written statement by any person shall, with the consent of the parties to the proceedings and subject to the conditions contained in subsection (2), be admissible as evidence to the like effect by that person. (2) A statement may be tendered in evidence under subsection (1) if: (a) the statement purports to be signed by the person who made it; (b) the statement contains a declaration by that person to the effect that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and (c) a copy of the statement is served, by or on behalf of the party proposing to tender it, on each of the other parties to the proceedings not later than fourteen days before the commencement of the trial unless the parties otherwise agree. I