Ali FJ ((read by Ismail Khan CJ) delivering of the Court):

The appellant was tried on four charges of criminal breach of trust under s. 409 of the Sarawak Penal code, Cap. 7 and was convicted and sentenced on three of them. On the third charge he was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case.

All the four charges in this case were in respect of cash belonging to Mohamed Zain bin Laji who, pending his trial on a charge of murder, was on remand in Sibu Prison. The appellant was the officer-in-charge of the prisons and in that capacity was said to have been entrusted with the prison's belongings for safe keeping.

The facts which are not in dispute are shortly as follows: On 2 January 1971 the police from the Anti-Corruption Agency, Sibu, Sarawak raided the Sibu Prison and discovered that a substantial amount cash belonging to the remand prisoner missing from the office safe. Cash belonging to six other detainees were also found missing but no detailed evidence was given in respect of it and it was not suggested that the appellant had anything to do with it. Evidence against the appellant, however, was in respect of money which belonged to Mohamed Zain who, according to the evidence, had received various sums of money between July and December, 1970. These amounts were placed in six different envelopes, marked as Exhs. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6. They were all locked in the office safe for safe custody. Over $1,900 was found missing from the envelops. The appellant being away on leave on the day of the raid did not have or was not given any opportunity to explain what happened to the missing cash. But on the day after the raid when he came to the office he told Assistant Superintendent of Police Poh Thuan Keat, the investigating officer, that the money was in his flat. Later the same day he handed another $300. On these facts the question for consideration would appear to be, whether the appellant took the money with dishonest intention. In terms of s. 405 of the Penal Code , did he dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use the money which he took?

In a long judgment covering several pages the learned trial Judge dealt with all aspects of the evidence and arguments and gave his reasons for the finding that the appellant was guilty on the first, second and fourth charges. In convicting the appellant on the first and second charges on the first and second charges, he said:

I had carefully examined the evidence produced by the prosecution and had come the conclusion that in so far as the evidence of Dunstan relating to the first and second charges were concerned, there was no corroboration of his testimony. I am fully aware of the danger of convicting an accused person, particularly a prisoner who is holding a senior position in the government service, on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and had warned m