JUDGMENTBY: ABDUL HAROLD J

This is an appeal against conviction and sentence of the appellant, a probationary inspector of the Royal Malaysian Police, on two charges under section 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 for corruptly obtaining from one Wong Bok Yin alias Wong Yin for himself a gratification of cash $ 500 and $ 490 as an inducement for forbearing to do an act in relation to his principals affairs, to wit, to refrain from taking action against the said Wong Bok Yin for being in possession of goods which were alleged to be imitation goods.

There are numerous grounds of appeal but most of them have been abandoned by Datuk Balwant Singh counsel for the appellant. The main grounds are --

(1) that the learned President made no finding that the complainant (PW1)

was an accomplice, and, if the complainant was an accomplice, the learned

President ought to have warned himself of the danger of convicting the

appellant on the complainants uncorroborated evidence;

(2) that the learned President failed to recognize, on the facts adduced

by the prosecution, even if believed, that it was a simple straightforward

case of extortion and the appellant ought to have been charged under section

383 of the Penal Code;

(3) that the learned President failed to recognize that the appellant was

not acting in relation to the affairs of his principal by representing to the

complainant that he committed an offence against the law because the

complainant had committed no offence and the conviction on the charge of

corruption was therefore wrong in law; and

(4) that the learned President failed to direct his mind to the

ingredients of the charge and to recognize that there was no evidence

whatsoever that the money allegedly given to the appellant was an inducement

for forbearing to do an act in relation to his principals affairs, to wit, to

refrain from taking action against the complainant for being in possession of

goods alleged to be imitation goods.

It is the prosecution case that on October 25, 1972, at about 4.00 or 5.00 oclock in the afternoon the appellant in the company of Inspector Zakariah, a fellow officer, proceeded to the complainants (Wongs) house and after conducting a search, seized certain articles. Wong, who was not at home then, came to know of it from his wife later that evening. Some time after 9.00 p.m. the same evening, Wong called at Cheras Police Station where he met the appellant. At the appellants suggestion, both the appellant and Wong proceeded to the Lake Gardens in Wongs car. At a tea stall in the Lake Gardens, the complainant asked the appellant why his house was searched and the articles seized. The appellant told Wong that those articles were imitation goods. Wong explained that he was a businessman and when he bought the goods he did not know they were imitation. At this point the appellant asked Wong to wait as he wanted to make a telephone call. Soon after, Inspector Zakariah arrived and joined them. It was then that the appellant asked Wong how much he could give him to solve the matter. The appellant said that at least $ 2,000 were required. Wong offered $ 200 he had with him but the appellant did not accept. The appellant told Wong that he would accept $ 1,500. Inspector Zakariah left after he and the appellant spoke something in English.

After that the appellant got into Wongs car and they had further discussion concerning the amount. After some bargaining the appellant said that he would accept $ 1,000. Wong told the appellant that he had to get a loan from his friend. Accompanied by the appellant, Wong proceeded to his friends house at Ipoh Road. Failing to find his friend there, he then proceeded to Ampang with the appellant still in the car. There he met one Sheon Tan Sang (PW4). After explaining to Sheon why he wanted the money, Wong managed to secure a loan of $ 100. Sheon who testified at the trial substantiated the evidence given by Wong. Wong again drove to Ipoh Road to l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document