Lord Diplock J:

(delivering the judgment of the Board): The respondent was charged before the Sessions Court, Batu Pahat, with an offence under s. 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, which is in the following terms:-

If -

(a) any agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having after the coming into operation of this Act done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business;

... he shall be guilty of an offence ...

s. 14 of the same Act provides:-

It was proved that the respondent was in the employment of a public body and that a gratification had been paid or given to him. His defence was that it was not paid or given and accepted corruptly. He was acquitted by the Sessions Court and this acquittal was upheld on appeal to the High Court. The following question of law was, however, reserved for the decision of the Federal Court under s. 66 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964:-

Their Lordships have been informed that whatever answer may be given to this question no further criminal proceedings in respect of the offence charged will be brought against the respondent. The question is in general terms. Its determination does not depend upon the particular facts of the case in which it arose. It is accordingly unnecessary to refer to them, but in justice to the respondent whose name will figure in the Law Reports of Malaysia, it should be stated that in their Lordships' view upon the facts as found by the Sessions Court he was entitled to be acquitted.

The question reserved for the decision of the Federal Court assumes that there is some relevant difference in practical effect, apart from mere phraseology, between the burden described in the first part of the question and that described in the second part. The phraseology appears to have been borrowed from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dhanvantra v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1964575. That was a prosecution under Indian legislation in similar terms to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961. The Supreme Court of India undoubtedly thought that the two burdens were not the same and preferred the description in the second part of the question, which they regarded as imposing a more onerous burden of proof. The Federal Court of Malaysia, in the judgment now appealed from which was delivered by Ong Hock Thye FJ (as he then was) appear to have accepted that there was a relevant difference but did not seek to identify it. They preferred the description in the first part of the question and in their formal order they found:-