Thomson J:

The facts sufficiently appear from the Judgment.

This appellant was convicted in the Sessions Court at Ipoh on a charge of taking gratifications as a public servant in contravention of s. 161 of the Penal Code .He was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of $1,500 or nine months' simple imprisonment in default of payment.Against that conviction and sentence he has now appealed.

A large number of grounds of appeal were argued with great force and persuasiveness by Mr. Joaquim, and I trust I shall not be regarded as lacking in appreciation of the assistance I have derived from Mr. Joaquim's argument if in view of certain conclusions at which I have arrived I do not deal in detail with a 11 the grounds argued by him.

At the commencement of the trial there were three charges against the appellant to all of which he pleaded not guilty.

The first of these charges was dismissed on grounds which on the material before me I do not fully understand but which I propose to disregard as I am not here concerned with that charge.

The remaining two charges were as follows:

That you on or about 4 April 1950 at the District Hospital, Ipoh, being a public servant in the Medical Service of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, accepted a gratification other than legal remuneration, to wit, the sum of $7 in

cash, from the said Lee Koi s/o Lee Sui as a motive for doing an official act, namely, the giving of medical treatment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under S 161 of the Penal Code .

That you on or about 4 April 1950, at the District Hospital, Ipoh, being a public servant in the Medical Service of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, accepted a gratification other than legal remuneration, to wit, the sum of $10 in cash, from one Wong Fook Heng s/o Wong Ngee, as a motive for doing an official act, to wit, the giving of medical treatment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 161 of the Penal Code .

In broad outline the prosecution case on these charges was that the two persons named in them were opium addicts who were desirous of obtaining treatment for their condition at the Government Hospital in Ipoh.Such treatment is normally given free of charge on the part of the Government and it was the duty of the appellant as a Government Medical Officer to give it. In circumstances which do not appear on the record, the persons named in the charges were previously provided with marked notes by the Police and armed with these notes they proceeded to the appellant's consulting room at the lpoh Hospital.There they both obtained some treatment for their condition and it is said that prior to receiving such treatment they paid to the appellant at his request sums of $7 and $10 respectively, the money in question consisting of the marked notes which the police had given them.Shortly afterwards Police Officers entered the consulting room and the notes in question, together with other money, were found in the trousers pocket of the appellant.

At the close of the case for the prosecution it was submitted that the appellant had no case to answer.For reasons which have not been stated, the learned President acceded to that submission in the case of the second charge but refused to accede to it in the case of the third charge.

Frankly, on the material before me I am unable to understand how the learned President could possibly have arrived at both these conclusions.Lee Koi had given evidence that he had paid money to appellant on appellant's request in the presence of Wong Fook Heng and that Wong Fook Heng had paid money to the appellant in his presence.Similarly, Wong Fook Heng had given evidence that he gave money to the appellant in Lee Koi's presence and that Lee Koi gave money to the appellant in his presence.As regards both payments there were minor discrepancies between the evidence of the witnesses which may or may not have affected the value of that evidence.There was, however