This is an appeal against the decision of Stipendiary Magistrate at Sibu, upon his acquittal of the accused charged under section 4(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961.

The facts are these:

Acting under the direction of his OCCI, one Inspector Michael Lee (PW1) carried out an investigation on an allegation of corruption against a senior police officer. In carrying out this duty PW1 was supervised by a Divisional Superintendent of Police (PW2). The investigation involved the accused who was suspected of running an illegal four-digits lottery although he had a licence to sell legal lottery tickets as well.

In the course of investigation PW1 met the accused four times beginning from June 17, 1976 in order to record his statement. On 18th of June while recording the accused's statement at his (accused's) house PW1 said that the accused offered to pay him $2000.00 a month for a period of one year, which he refused. On returning to the police station he reported the incident to PW2. On June 19, when continuing to record the accused's statement at the same place, the accused again asked him whether he would accept the offer. PW1 said that he again declined. This matter was also reported to PW2.

Following this offer, the matter was referred to the NBI officer (PW3) who requested to be informed when accused was contacted again. On 23rd of June the accused was to meet PW1 at the Bamboo Coffee House of Premier Hotel Sibu, at about 5.00 p.m. PW1 informed the NBI officer at 4.30 p.m. and a trap was planned. PW1 was searched at the NBI's office to see that he carried no money with him except enough to pay for his drinks and there he left for the Coffee House. On arrival thereafter he was met by accused. After having had their drinks PW1 said the accused handed him an envelope saying that it contained $500.00 as part payment. PW1 accepted it and as had been arranged followed accused out from the Coffee House indicating that money had been passed. When they came to the lobby of the Hotel PW3 arrested the accused in the presence of PW1.

On this evidence the learned magistrate found that PW1 was a trap witness and because there was no corroboration, he acquitted the accused without calling for his defence. Following an appeal the learned magistrate was ordered to call for the defence of the accused and having done so, he again acquitted the accused on similar grounds he held before. This is the second appeal.

In his grounds of decision the learned magistrate referred to Abdul Hamid J.'s decision (as he then was) in Mohd Taufik v Public Prosecutor [1975] 1 MLJ 36 in that when considering the evidence of a trap witness, the trial magistrate should warn himself of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of such witness. I am in agreement with that decision but in my view, the learned magistrate has in this instance, misdirected himself on this question. He seems to hold that PW2 and PW3's testimonies are not corroborative evidence relating to the giving of bribe by the accused to PW1. He also seems to think that the corroboration needed in this case must be positive evidence of an eye-witness to state the fact that the accused handed the envelope containing the money to PW1.

In series of decisions in our courts, it has been held that it would be sufficient corroboration if there is independent evidence of relevant circumstances connecting the accused with the crime see Public Prosecutor v Datuk Harun Idris (No2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15 @ 19. Thus corroborative evidence need not be direct. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the offence. PW2's and PW3's testimonies are such evidence.

On reading the learned magistrate's decision as a whole it appears that he was too engrossed with moral considerations and the motive of PW1. He has repeatedly stated in his decision that PW1's evidence was fraught with dubiousity, suspicion and ulterior motive because in his view, a ju