Hashim Yeop A Sani J (delivering oral judgement):

This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of Mohd Kassim bin Yatim at the close of the prosecution case in respect of three charges under s. 12(1)(d) of the Passports Act, 1966. That section provides that if any person with intent to obtain for himself or any other person a passport or other travel document knowingly makes any false statement which to his knowledge is false in any material particular commits an offence punishable under that section. The charges are that the accused knowingly made false statements separately on three application forms for passports of Wong Har, Liew Sew Wah and Mok Kok Khung on 29 July 1969, on 2 August 1969, and on 5 August 1969, respectively to the effect that he had known these applicants for certain number of years and signed against those statements with the name "Mohd Kassim bin Yatim, PJK." It was in evidence that the accused was awarded a PJK in 1959 which award was published in the GazetteNo. 39/59. It was also in evidence that it had been the practice for the immigration officers to accept recommenders for applications for passports from amongst persons who are holders of PJKs, along with Members of Parliament, bank officials, medical practitioners and others of similar standing.

The three applicants for the passports referred to above gave evidence (PW6, PW7 and PW9) and all testified that their application forms were filled up by a certain Chinese petition writer who typed out the particulars in the forms and who also told them he could find a suitable recommender for them. In each case the forms were handed back to the applicants the following day and the recommendation already made and appeared to have been signed by a person named "Mohd Kassim bin Yatim, PJK." In each case also a sum of money was paid to the petition writer as consideration for the recommendation. But in each case the applicants (PW6, PW7 and PW9) testified that they never saw much less knew who the said "Mohd Kassim bin Yatim" was and therefore to that extent the statements in the application forms were false. Subsequently all the applicants submitted their applications to the Immigration Department and later obtained their passports.

One special difficulty encountered by the prosecution in this case was the absence of the Chinese petition writer referred to by all the applicants who was said to have filled the forms for them and who obtained the signatures purported to be those of the accused. There was therefore an absence of a direct link between those signatures and the accused. The investigating officer in the case (PW2) explained the absence of this very vital witness as follows: -

I then went with him (PW9) to, the place where the petition writers at Douglas Road sit so as to try to find the person who filled the application for him. We were looking for a Chinese petition writer. After that both of us went to the Immigration Department to try to identify a certain Indian gentleman. We could not trace any of the two persons. In the earlier two case (referring to PW6 and PW7) I did not make any attempts to trace the petition writer as our investigations revealed that they could not be traced."

Later in his evidence PW2 did however testify to the effect that he interviewed several more petition writers in the same area but could not trace the "authors of the applications." Obviously the phantom writer had disappeared and with him the only direct evidence which might connect the accused to the statements and the signatures in the applications forms P3, P4 and P5. I do not think however that any blame can be attached to the prosecution for the nonproduction of this very material witness and that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution as there was in my view sufficient proof of attempts to trace him but which were unsuccessful.

As a result of this disadvantage the prosecution had to endeavour to show by