Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] The applicant (whom we will refer to as the accused throughout this judgment) was convicted by the sessions court at Kuala Lumpur on two charges of outraging of modesty under s. 354 of the Penal Code. The conviction was entered on 8 November 1996. However, the grounds of judgment were not made available until 26 October 2001, that is to say almost five years later. The accused appealed to the High Court. It is clear from the notes recorded by that court that several points were argued in support of the appeal. Among these was the effect of the long delay by the sessions court to deliver its written reasons as well as the correctness of its direction unto itself on the standard of proof applicable. However, when the High Court came to give its decision, it confined itself to only the delay point and direction as to the standard of proof. It held for the accused on both these points and quashed the conviction. The public prosecutor being dissatisfied with the acquittal appealed to this court, a differently constituted bench of which allowed the appeal and reinstated the conviction. The accused then applied to set aside the order of this court on the gr