Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA:

[1] This is an appeal by the 1st and the 3rd defendants against the decision of the Judge of the High Court who on 31 December 1993, found them guilty of contempt. They were sentenced on 28 January 1994. The 1st defendant was sentenced to two weeks imprisonment and RM20,000 fine in default 6 months imprisonment for the offence of disobedience of the Court order as per plaintiff's application for committal in encl 27. For the offence of evading the service of the same order as per plaintiffs' application for committal in encl 102, he was also sentenced to two weeks imprisonment and RM20,000 fine in default 6 months imprisonment. The 3rd defendant, on the other hand, was sentenced to two years imprisonment for each of the two offences. They were to run concurrently.

[2] (The 2nd defendant was absent throughout the whole proceedings before the Court below.)

[3] For the purposes of the present appeal we refer to the 1st defendant as the 1st appellant while the 3rd defendant as the 2nd appellant.

[4] Upon reading the records and hearing the arguments before us, we were unanimous in our finding with respect to the 1st appellant that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty for both the offences. We therefore allowed the appeals and set aside the sentences.

[5] With regard to the 2nd appellant (3rd defendant), we were also unanimous in our finding but only in respect of the offence of disobedience of the Court order for the same reason. We therefore allowed the appeal and set aside both the finding of guilty and the sentence as imposed. For the offence of evading the service of the Court order, we by a majority decision, agreed with the finding of guilty by the learned Judge below but disagreed with the sentence imposed. We therefore dismissed the appeal on the finding of guilty and allowed the appeal on sentence. We set aside the sentence of imprisonment and substituted it with a fine in the sum of RM7,000.

[6] However we in the majority wish to add to what has been said by the learned Judge below the following. We noted that the firm of Wee Choo Keong and Faaiz on 10 February 1993 wrote to Messrs Cheang & Ariff, solicitors for the plaintiff and informed them that they were acting for the 2nd appellant. The sentence that followed which we will quote here, is of great significance and it reads:

We have been informed by our client that our client has heard a rumour that your clients have filed a summons against our client.

[7] It is amazing that in the context in which the letter was written, a professional could use the word "rumour". Firstly, why the need to write to the other side merely to say that information was only a "rumour". He could simply telephone. He was in Jalan Raja Laut while the other at Jalan Yap Kwan Seng. From Jalan Raja Laut he could even walk to the High Court Registry to enquire. He could have got a clear-cut answer. Again the news about the case including the issuing of the order appeared in the STAR the same day (10 February 1993). For a politician especially one residing in a city, and for that matter almost anyone the first item on the breakfast menu is the morning papers. We were more than convinced that the 2nd appellant knew about the case and the existence of the order in the morning of 10 February 1993. By employing the word "rumour" we could not equate the mind of the writer of the letter to the innocent mind of a newly born babe. By that we simply mean that the 2nd appellant was not honest.

[8] Further two days before (8 February 1993) there was wide publicity in the Chinese newspapers, such as Nanyang Siang Pau (02-40-94 Vol C p 679), Sin Chew Jit Poh (02-40- 94 Vol C p 680), Shin Min Daily News (02-40-94 Vol C p 683) about the lodging of a police report by the 2nd appellant (3rd defendant) against Tan Sri Dato' Loy Hean Hong regarding certain business transactions which the 2nd appellant considered illegal. With that kind of accusations contained in a police report and