Azmi LP:

I agree that the appeal on the merits should be dismissed for reasons given by my brother Suffian FJ. I wish to be associated with his remarks contained in the last paragraph of his judgement.

Suffian FJ:

We dismissed this appeal and I now give my reasons.

The appellant was arrested on 24 July 1969, at Kuala Lumpur on an endorsed warrant issued by a judicial authority in Singapore. The offences alleged against him are as set out in the following two charges:

1. You, Gerald Fernandez, are charged that you, on or about 13 July 1966, at Raffles Place, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, the Secretary and Legal Adviser to the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines, did corruptly accept for yourself a gratification, to wit, $6,000 from one Quek Chong Choy, an agent of M/s. Edward Lumley & Sons (S) Pte. Ltd. which payment was sanctioned by a Director of the firm, namely Ronald Halkerstone MacDougal, as a reward for showing favour to M/s. Edward Lumley & Sons (S) Pte Ltd in relation to your principal's affairs and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960 and punishable under s. 6 of the said Ordinance.

2. You, Gerald Fernandez, are charged that you, on or about 5 August 1968 at Raffles Place, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, the Secretary and Legal Adviser to the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines, did corruptly accept for yourself a gratification, to wit, $5,000 from one Quek Chong Choy, an

agent of M/s. Edward Lumley & Sons (S) Pte. Ltd. which payment was sanctioned by a Director of the firm, namely Ronald Halkerstone MacDougal, as a reward for showing favour to M/s. Edward Lumley & Sons (S) Pte. Ltd. in relation to your principal's affairs and you have thereby committed an offence under s. 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960 and punishable under s. 6 of the same Ordinance.

Pending an inquiry under s. 11 of the Commonwealth Fugitive Criminals Act, 1967, he was remanded on bail. Hearing was fixed for 15 16 and 17 September.

On 21 August the appellant by his solicitors, Chin & Fernandez (of which firm he was a member), filed an originating summons under RSC O. 54A, r. 1A, seeking determination of five questions and for declarations accordingly. At the hearing before the learned CJ on 15 September three further questions were added.

In brief, the plaintiff asked for rulings which would have the effect of freeing him from the liability of being surrendered to the Singapore authorities. The learned CJ gave rulings adverse to him and also held that the application by way of originating summons was misconceived.

The plaintiff (again by his solicitors) appeals.

The eight questions on which rulings were sought were as follows:

(1)Are the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961, restricted to persons employed by or connected with any 'public body' as defined by s. 2 of that Act in relation to the affairs of such 'public body'?

(2)Whether the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961, applies to the affairs of private companies, commercial concerns, etc., inter se and such affairs being unconnected with any 'public body' or agent or servant thereof?

(3)Is a public limited company incorporated in a foreign country under the laws of such country with the Government of Malaysia as one of its major shareholders included in the definition of 'public body' in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961?

(4)Is the Commonwealth Fugitive Criminals (Amendment) Act, 1969, retrospective in effect to allow the surrender of a fugitive criminal in respect of offences committed in Singapore before the date of its commencement but the application for surrender being made after the date of its commencement?

(4A)If the Honourable Court holds under (4) above that the Commonwealth Fugitive Criminals (Amendment) Act, 1969, to be retrospective would that Act be void for the reason that it is ultra vires the provisions of article 7(1) of the Constitution of Mala