Neal J:

The appellant was convicted by the President of the Sessions Court at Parit Buntar on the following charge:

That you, on 12 June 1960 at about 12 noon at No6523 Lorong Pekan Minggu, Sungei Gedong, Semanggol, Bagan Serai, in the State of Perak, being an agent employed in the Royal Federation of Malaya Police, to wit, Corporal 3396, did corruptly accept a sum of $30 in cash from one Lee Yew Khiam (f) for yourself for showing favour, in relation to your princpal's affairs, namely, by promising to assist the saly Lee Yew Khiam in settling a samsu case which is still under investigation vide Bagan Serai ReportNo. 547/60, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 3(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1950. (No 5/50)."

Mr Marshall who appeared on behalf of the appellant argued the following seven grounds of appeal:

(1) The charge disclosed no ofrence known to the law;

(2) The learned President erred in law-

In convicting the appellant on a charge in respect of which the principal ingredient was not proved, namely that the acceptance of the sum of $30 was for showing favour in relation to his prinicipal's affairs - neither the charge nor the evidence substantiated the averment that the appellant received money as a reward for showing favour in relation to bis principal's affairs;

(3) In questioning the accused without noting the exact nature of the questions and the replies;

(4) In failing to recognise that PW2 (Chor Bak Khia) was an active accomplice not covered by the provisions of s. 13(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance;

(5) In failing to recognise that PW3 (Teoh Chin Wong) was a chance witness and his evidence should be viewed with caution;

(6) In failing to give adequate consideration to the explanation of the accused and in failing to give any consideration to the evidence of the two defence witnesses (Tong Eng Lee and Khoo Teik Eng);

(7) In giving undue weight to an irrelevant aspect of the evidence, being the evidence as to the incident of the appellant drawing his revolver at the time of his arrest by plain clothes officers."

There was an additional ground of appeal based upon the absence of a copy of the sanction in the appeal record. Mr. Marshall intimated that he abandoned that ground of appeal because he was satisfied not only that was there a sanction in existence but that it had been produced although not included in the record.

At the conclusion of the argument I reserved my decision to enable me to give further consideration to the first ground of appeal argued before me, namely, that the charge disclosed no offence known to the law. Mr. Marshall relied upon the rule of construction as to materiality and the necessity for the inclusion of all essentials in a charge and referred to the statement in the 4th Edn. of Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes at page 265, and three Malayan decisions, namely, Public Prosecutor v. Syed Bakri [1955] MLJ xvii, Abdul Salam V. Public Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor v. Leong Yoon Meow [1953] MLJ xxxv, and the recent English case of Stewart and Harris 44 Cr App R 29 where the word, 'knowingly,' had been omitted from the charge. The Deputy Public Prosecutor in dealing with this ground of appeal relied upon ss. 156 and 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As regards the English authority, it must be remembered that the English criminal law contains no provision equivalent to ss. 156 and 321 of the Federation Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the English authorities are of little assistance to this Court. As regards the decision of Thomson J, as he then was, in Public Prosecutor v. Syed Bakri [1955] MLJ xvii it was in my opinion necessary to refer to the records of this Court in Criminal RevisionNo. 3 of 1955 in order to ascertain the set of circumstances to which his Lordship's words had reference. The records show that on 26 January 1955 the then Perak, Deputy Public Prosecutor drew the attention of the Court in a m