The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that a public servant corruptly received gratification.

Introduction

[1] The Respondent, Arifin Bin Drahman was charged before the Sessions Court, Sibu with an offence under s 17 (a) of the Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission Act 2009. On 27 October 2015, at the close of the prosecution's case, the learned Sessions Court Judge acquitted and discharged the Respondent without calling for his defence.

[2] The learned Sessions Court Judge held that the Prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case against the Respondent at the end of the Prosecution's case.

[3] The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the learned Sessions Court Judge's order of acquittal and discharge, has filed this Appeal against the order of acquittal and discharge.

The Amended Charge

[4] The amended Charge against the Respondent reads as follows:-

"That you on 26 November 2014, at about 1530 hrs, at Car Park Kuala Lama, in the District of Mukah, in the Mukah Division, in the State of Sarawak, as an agent of Government of Malaysia, to wit, Pembantu Perikanan Gred 22, attached to Jabatan Perikanan Laut Malaysia, Daerah Mukah, did corruptly agrees to accept for yourself a gratification, to wit, cash money of RM1,500.00, from one, Eirwan Bin Haini, as a reward for you to do an act in relation to your principal's affair, to wit, to obtain a catering work of "Perkhidmatan menyediakan minuman pagi dan makan tengah hari untuk Majlis Pelancaran Tukun Tiruan Mukah 2014 di Dewan Pejabat Perikanan Laut Mukah" for Eirwan Bin Haini and that you have thereby committed an offence under s 17 (a) of the Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission Act 2009 and punishable under s 24 (1) of the same Act."

Consideration Of The Appellant'S Grounds Of Appeal

[5] The Appellant's Petition of Appeal contained 12 grounds of appeal and they are as follows.

The 1st Ground Of Appeal- Discharge And Acquittal Of The Respondent

[6] The 1st ground of appeal is that the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in law and in fact when he decided to discharge and acquit the Respondent in respect of the charge under s 17 (a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 .

[7] The essential ingredients of an offence under s 17 (a) of the Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission Act 2009 which the prosecution needs to prove are as follows:-

[i] The Respondent at the time of the commission of the offence was a public servant; and

[ii] He corruptly agreed to accept the gratification in question as inducement or a reward.

[8] This Court finds that It is not disputed that at the material time, the Respondent was in the employment of a public body ie Jabatan Perikanan Malaysia.

[9] This Court finds that the Appellant has failed to adduce credible and sufficient evidence to prove the main element of the offence ie the acceptance of illegal gratification by the Respondent.

[10] To prove their case against the Respondent, the Appellant called 7 witnesses including the complainant [PW1]. From the recorded telephonic conversation [Exhs P6(1) and P6(2)] between the Respondent and PW1, this Court finds that there is nothing there, to show that the Respondent had requested for the money from PW1.There was also no mention of the demand of the bribe and the time and place was also not stated during this conversation.

[11] This Court noted that the Appellant's evidence showed that the Respondent did not take the alleged bribe money when they asked PW1, the following question during his examination in chief, at p 37