Abdul Hamid J:

[1] This is an appeal by the public prosecutor against the decision of the learned president of the sessions court acquitting the respondent on a charge under s 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961. The charge reads as follows:

"That you on 10 February 1968 at the Public Works Department Office, Kuala Pilah, in the District of Kuala Pilah, in the State of Negri Sembilan, being an agent of the Government of Negri Sembilan, to wit, a junior technician (Road) knowingly used with intent to deceive your principal a document, to wit, Check Roll No 4 issued on 9 January 1968 being Check and Pay Roll of labour employed under Jurutera Kerja, Kuala Pilah in respect of wages and overtime pay in respect of which your principal is interested, and which document contains a statement which is false in material particular namely it stated that overtime work had been performed which statement to your knowledge was intended to mislead your principal and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961."

[2] Briefly, the facts of this case were that the respondent was a junior road technician attached to the Public Work Department Office, Kuala Pilah. The respondent had under his control four gangs of labourers. The respondent's duties were to muster the gangs everyday and to give them their work. Normal working hours will be from 6.30 am to 2.30 pm and work after 2.30 pm will be charged overtime. For overtime work, prior approval of the technical assistant should be obtained and transmitted to the executive engineer, unless there was an emergency in which case the respondent could authorise the work. There was in this case no prior approval given.

[3] The respondent was also responsible for entering the check rolls daily and to complete it by the end of the month for payment.

[4] On or about 10 February 1968, the respondent submitted Exhibit P4 the check roll containing claims for overtime as regards the gang of labourers under his charge. The check roll contained claims for overtime of some of the labourers who did not in fact perform the overtime as claimed.

[5] The appellant raised a number of grounds mainly on questions of fact. The learned president in his grounds of judgment dealt with the evidence of PW1 who stated that he saw the respondent writing on the check roll. The president came to the conclusion that the circumstances under which PW1 claimed to have seen the respondent writing on the check roll were such that it was impossible for PW1 to see what the accused was writing.

[6] The learned president further found (a) that Exhibit P4 had not been proved to be the actual check roll on which the accused was alleged to have written; (b) that someone other than the accused could have falsely made the entry - there was evidence that anyone in the office could have access to all the documents; (c) that other prosecution witnesses were quite formal and in no way implicated the accused, and (d) that PW8 Ibrahim bin Bulat was an accomplice.

"There is a distinction between the finding of a specific fact and a finding of fact which is really an inference drawn from facts specifically found. In the case of the latter the appellate cour