In the lower court, the respondent was tried on the following charge: —

"That you, on or about 17th June, 1974 at the Kalaka District Council's office, Saratok, 2nd Division, Sarawak, being an agent of the Kalaka District Council, to wit, the Secretary of the said Council, being employed as such by the Council did knowingly use with intent to deceive your principal, a document, to wit, payment voucher No. 11/6 dated June 17, 1974, in respect of which your principal is interested and which document contains statements which are false in material particulars, in that a sum of dollars one thousand, two hundred and sixty-four and cents nil ($1,264) of air passages had been incurred by yourself, wife and four children for trips from Kuching to Kuala Lumpur and back whereas no such expenses for air passages had been incurred, and which to your knowledge is intended to mislead your principal and that you have thereby committed an offence under section 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (Revised — 1971) Act 57, punishable under section 4 thereof."

He was acquitted on the said charge. The appellant has appealed to this court on a number of grounds. The appellant had filed in new grounds of appeal. These were not entertained by the court because of the lateness in filing them, and the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor has not pursued the matter. The appeal therefore proceeded on the original grounds as filed.

In the lower court, it was the case for the appellant that the respondent, as Secretary of the Kalaka District Council, had applied for leave and for free passages to visit Semenanjung Malaysia during his leave. Both were granted to the respondent, but he did not make use of the free passages granted because no air tickets had in fact been bought by him or on his behalf. Hence, in certifying in the payment voucher (Ex. P6) that he had lost all the relevant air tickets issued to him at a cost of $1,264, he had knowingly used Ex. P6 with intent to deceive his principal, the Kalaka District Council in that Ex. P6 contained false material particulars, namely that the said sum had been incurred by him and his family when they had not been so incurred, and this to his knowledge was intended to mislead his principal.

It was the case for the defence that the air tickets had been bought by the respondent through Chop Thong Hwa, a shop in Sarikei dealing in textile and hardware and general goods, which sometimes obtained air tickets on behalf of others from Sin Hua Travel Agent, Sibu. While in the course of making preparations in Kuching to visit Kuala Lumpur with his family, the respondent received news that one of his children was ill and he had to rush back to his house during the course of which he lost the air tickets. Hence, in certifying this in Ex. P6, he was merely certifying a fact, and, the cost of the air tickets having been incurred by him and his family, he had not committed the offence charged against him.

The first two grounds of appeal, which were dealt with together by the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, read as follows:—

"(a) The judgment of the learned District Court Magistrate cannot be supported and is perverse having regard to the evidence before him.

(b) The learned District Court Magistrate erred in law in acquitting the accused in that all the ingredients constituting the offence charged were proved by the Prosecution and were not challenged or denied by the defence."

It was submitted by the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor that the defence had not created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, and that to hold otherwise would be to go against the weight of the whole of the evidence. Further, that the finding of the learned trial magistrate that all the accused did was to seek reimbursement for the amount spent for the air tickets, that is, $1,264, could not be supported having regard to the evidence, in that on certain material parts of the evidence of PW5, he was not cross-examined