Sharma J:

The appellant was at the relevant time a sergeant in the Royal Malaysian Police. He was charged under s. 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 for having on 28 April 1969 corruptly accepted a sum of $50 from one Latip bin Muslim as an inducement to prefer a less serious charge against him in relation to the user by him of his car MB 5640 under the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958. The learned president found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution briefly was that on 14 April 1969 the appellant stopped the car MB 5640 in Jasin town as it had previously remained under observation and as it was suspected that Latip bin Muslim (PW1) was using it as a pirate taxi. The car having been stopped, PW1 was taken to the police station where his car was detained and he was informed that be might be charged in Court for operating a public service vehicle without a licence. PW1 next saw the appellant on 18 April 1969 when he (PW1) invited him to a coffee shop and requested him for his assistance so that instead of being charged for carrying passengers for hire and reward in his car which was not licensed for that purpose he could be charged for some lesser offence. The appellant told PW1 that he could help but had first to discuss the matter with inspector Ismail (PW4). The appellant denied that this meeting ever took place.

It is, however, apparent that the appellant never brought up the matter with inspector Ismail and it is difficult to believe or imagine that he ever could. On 26 April 1969 and again on 28 April 1969 one Minhad (PW2) went to see PW1 in order to tell him that the appellant wished to meet him. The appellant denied that he ever met PW2 on 26 April 1969 or 28 April 1969 or that he asked him to convey any message to PW1. PW2, however, supports PW1's testimony on that point. PW1 met the appellant in Jasin town on 28 April 1969 and invited him into coffee shopNo. 65 Main Road, Jasin where be repeated his earlier plea for reduction of the charge to one of lesser gravity. The appellant agreed to help on payment of $50 "coffee money". The time and place of payment were agreed. It was to be that very evening at 8.00 p.m. at the same coffee shop. The appellant denies that this meeting ever took place or that he at any time made any such arrangement with PW1. The question whether such a meeting did in fact take place or not is important to determine the veracity or truthfulness of PW1's testimony because as it transpired the appellant did appear at the appointed place that evening and almost at the appointed hour to fall into the trap.

PW1 says he felt it was an offence to pay $50 to the appellant. I am not inclined to believe that he felt that way. All he may actually have felt was to put the appellant in some trouble, if he could, for having stopped his "business". PW1 saw Minhad and they came to Malacca in one Haji Arshad's car in order to report to the anti-corruption agency. The three of them went to the house of chief inspector Hashim (PW6) where PW1 made the report exh. P1 PW6 then took them to the house of ASP Jamil Hassan (PW7) where inspector Tan Eng Cheng (PW10) was called. PW7 gave to PW1 five currency notes of $10 denomination. The particulars of these currency notes were taken down (exh. P13). Instructions were given to PW1 that after he had handed over the five $10 currency notes (P13 A-E) to the appellant he should in the act of leaving shop No. 65 Main Road, Jasin light a cigarette to serve as a signal to the raiding party which was to lie in hiding opposite the said shop. PW2 was to remain with PW1 to see and hear what transpired between the appellant and PW1. The party consisting of PW1, PW2, PW6, PW7 and PW10 then proceeded to Jasin. PW1 waited inside the shop while PW2 remained in the five foot way to await the arrival of the appellant. PW6, PW7 and PW10 took their positions on the other side of the shop. At about 8.