[2014] 5 MLRA Nachilongo Doreen v. PP 399 [5] SP3 proceeded to examine the bag, P17. The bag was not locked and had a baggage tag in the name of the appellant. The baggage tag and the boarding pass of the appellant (exh P15) show that the appellant had travelled from Johannesburg to KLIA on flight MH204. There were clothes and books in the bag, P17.5 out of the seven books had the name of the appellant on them. Upon removing the clothes and books that were inside the bag, SP3 felt something hard at the base of the bag. Using a knife and with difficulties, SP3 removed the layer (pelapik). Attached to the layer was another black layer. SP3 had to use a knife to detach the second layer. [6] Under both of these layers, SP3 found three packages containing ‘bahan kristal jernih disyaki dadah’. Upon analysis by the Chemist (SP2), the substances were found to be methamphetamine in the total weight of 1327.4 grams. [7] The learned trial judge found that there was no challenge on the analysis by the Chemist that the chain of evidence in respect of the drugs was not broken. Accordingly the learned trial judge ruled that there was no dispute on the identity of the drugs. [8] The learned trial judge found that the appellant was caught red handed pulling the bag that contained the drugs. Coupled with the evidence of the baggage tag; the boarding pass and the books which had the name of the appellant, the learned trial judge found that bag P17 belonged to the appellant and that she had custody and control of the bag. And since custody and control had been proven, the learned trial judge ruled that the prosecution is entitled to rely on s 37(d) to presume that the appellant had knowledge of the drugs. [9] Further, relying on the manner the drugs were concealed in P17 and the fact that the appellant was travelling and transporting the drugs from Johannesburg to Malaysia, the learned judge found that the act amounts to trafficking under s 2 of the Act. The cases of Teuku Nawardin Syamsuar v. PP [2011] 1 MLRA 70 and Sia Pang Liong v. PP [2012] 1 MLRA 93 were cited in support of such finding. [10] All the ingredients required for a charge under s 39B(1)(a) of the Act having been established, the learned trial judge found a prima facie case proven and called the appellant to enter her defence. The Defence [11] The appellant gave evidence under oath. She states that it was her first visit to Malaysia and that her fare and expenses were paid for by her father. According to the appellant, in 2011, she had made plans to come to Malaysia as she was informed by her friends that there are a lot of job opportunities in Malaysia. [12] The appellant left Zambia on 19 February 2011 for South Africa. When she reached South Africa she contacted her friend Natasha to meet her. Natasha