Hj. Abdul Malik bin Hj. Ishak JC:

The first appellant, a bailiff of the Sessions Court, Taiping, and the second appellant, a contract watchman in the employment of the Taiping Court, were convicted in the Taiping Sessions Court on 4 March 1989 on a joint charge under s. 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 read with s. 34 of the Penal Code for corruptly accepting from one Shahabuddin bin Hj. Ashari for themselves a gratification of cash RM300 as an inducement for doing an act in relation to their principals' affairs, to wit, to expedite the processing of a petition for a Letter of Administration by the said Shahabuddin bin Hj. Ashari to administer the movable asset of the late Hajah Bidah bte Musa, to wit, cash savings of RM21,862.67 with the Chartered Bank, Taiping. The first appellant was sentenced to four (4) months' imprisonment plus a fine of RM3,000 in default four (4) months' imprisonment and the second appellant was sentenced to three (3) months' imprisonment plus a fine of RM3,000 in default four (4) months' imprisonment. A stay of the execution was granted by the Taiping Sessions Court. The appeals of both appellants are against conviction and sentence.

There are numerous grounds of appeal set out in the petitions of appeal on behalf of the appellants but for the purpose of this judgment, it would be sufficient for me to deal only with certain basic issues which struck at the core of the whole case, and which I have observed as either not raised at any stage of the trial or raised but not dealt with in the grounds of judgment of the Taiping Sessions Court.

It is the prosecution case that the complainant (PW5), a graduate teacher by the name of Shahabuddin bin Hj. Ashari, on 10 May 1986 proceeded to Taiping Court to apply for Letters of Administration on behalf of his late mother's estate. On arrival at the Court, the complainant was directed to see the first appellant who obligingly gave him an application form for Letters of Administration (P4). The first appellant told the complainant to see a petition writer to fill up (P4). As soon as the complainant walked out of the Court building, the second appellant approached him and told him that with inside help the application would be processed faster and the complainant must give RM300 to RM400 to the person inside. On leaving the Court's premises, the complainant proceeded to the Badan Pencegah Rasuah's ("BPR") office as he felt that there was a malpractice. At the BPR's office, the complainant met Lim Yong Seng (PW10) ("Lim") who then brought him to see Sapun bin Samsudin (PW9) ("Sapun"). Sapun requested the complainant to go to the Court in a week's time to get further particulars pertaining to the amount he was supposed to pay and the purpose of paying that amount. Sapun requested the complainant to meet the second appellant for this purpose.

On 17 May 1986 the complainant dutifully went to the Court to meet the second appellant and it was on this occasion that the complainant was introduced to the first appellant by the second appellant. It was in evidence, and this was not considered by the Sessions Court, that the complainant came prepared for this meeting. The complainant brought along a mini tape recorder which he placed in his right trouser pocket. And that according to the complainant, before he alighted from his car (after parking his car in the Court compound), he had switched on the tape. It appears that this mini tape recorder was borrowed by the complainant from his friend by the name of Mohd. Salim bin Mohd. Said. It was in evidence, that it was totally the complainant's idea and not that of the BPR's, in bringing along the mini tape recorder for this meeting. Upon arrival at the Court, the complainant met the second appellant along the corridor of the ground floor of the Court house. Both of them had some discussions and during this discussion, the second appellant told the complainant that if he were to make a personal applicati