Muniandy Kannayappan J:

[1] The appeal in the present case is by the prosecution against the order of acquittal and discharge of the accused by the sessions court judge (SCJ).

[2] The accused was charged for an offence of posting on his tweeter application an offensive comment directed at individuals which had the effect of annoyance and insult. The content of the charge is not reproduced, as the comments made are as stated by the SCJ "dipadam kerana perkataan lucah dan menghina Raja dan agama".

However, it could be found in the record of appeal. It is an offence pursuant to s 233(1)(a) of the Multimedia and Communication Act 1998 (Act 588). The provision (as applicable in the official text language) renders the following:

(1) Seseorang yang:

(a) Dengan menggunakan perkhidmatan aplikasi secara sedar:

(i) Membuat dan

(ii) Memulakan penghantaran, komunikasi yang jelik sifatnya dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain;

The ingredients of the offence which has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt are:

1) The accused had used his Twitter application to upload a communication;

2) The said communication is offensive;

3) The communication was uploaded with an intent