Alaudin Mohd. Sheriff J:

On 30 May 1994 both appellants were convicted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 (the Act) at the Sessions Court Kangar. The first appellant, in Case No. 61-1-89 was convicted for an offence of accepting a gratification to wit RM100, an offence under s. 4(a) of the Act and punishable under s. 4 and was sentenced to four (4) months, imprisonment and a fine of RM1,000 in default 4 months imprisonment. In Case No. 61-2-89 he was convicted for an offence of corruptly soliciting a gratification to wit RM400, an offence under s. 3(a)(ii) of the Act and punishable under s. 3 of the same Act. He faced a similar sentence as the first offence. As for the second appellant, he was convicted for an offence under s. 4(a) of the Act, i.e. abetment of an offence of corruptly accepting a gratification and faced a similar sentence.

Both the appellants have now appealed against their conviction and sentence.

Before me, the conviction was attacked on the following grounds:

(a) The learned Sessions Judge misdirected herself on facts and law when after having held that PW2 and PW3 were accomplices she applied the wrong test for corroborative eviden