Chang Min Tat FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

At the close of the case of the prosecution against the respondents, and after hearing extensive arguments, the High Court at Malacca held that of the two essential ingredients in the offences of corrupt practice against the first respondent, the prosecution had established his guilty mind but not that he was a public officer. The Judge accordingly acquitted and discharged the respondents: [1979] 1 MLJ 166. On appeal by the Public Prosecutor, this Court held that on a proper construction, the first respondent was a public officer within the meaning of s. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 (Revised 1971) and sent back the case to the High Court with the order to call for the defence: [1979] 1 MLJ 174. It is clear that at this continuation of the trial, the only issue before the High Court was whether the defence had adduced sufficient evidence from which the Court could hold that there was not this guilty mind or that a doubt had been cast on the prosecution's evidence of this state of mind. The prosecution and the defence both perfectly understood what they had to do when the defence was entered on. Neither