Ali J:

The appellant was convicted by the president, sessions Court, Batu Pahat, for an offence of cheating under s. 420 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment.

The prosecution's case briefly was that the appellant had obtained a sum of $200 from the complainant, Hamzah bin Haji Mohamed Som, PW3, on a false representation that the money was required for an interview to be held for the purpose of selecting candidates to fill the vacancies of religious teachers. The complainant was one of the candidates. That the money consisting of two $50 notes and ten $10 notes was paid to the appellant on 12 April 1967 was established by the evidence of the complainant himself, his father (PW7), and another witness named Mohamed Rajlis bin Murib, PW10. The payment was made at the appellant's house. On the evidence before him the learned president was fully justified in his conclusion that money had passed. But this finding alone was not sufficient to support a charge of cheating. There must in addition be evidence to show that the complainant was induced to make the payment by a false representation moving from the appellant or to use the words in the charge "by deceiving him into believing that the sum of $200 was necessary for an interview for the post of a religious teacher. . ." On this point the prosecution relied on the evidence of the complainant and also of his father who, needless to say, was an interested witness. According to them the money was required to pay the cost of an interview. In his grounds of decision the learned president was satisfied that the complainant and his father were ordinary kampong folks who trusted the appellant who was a naib penghulu in the kampong. The president was also satisfied that the complainant had been easily deceived by the appellant's representation that money was required to pay for the cost of an interview which, on the evidence of other witnesses, was in fact not necessary. One of the questions raised in this appeal was that the learned president had erred in fact in finding that the complainant was deceived. There could be no doubt from the evidence on the record that the complainant had made it to appear to the trial Court that he was deceived. The question necessarily turned on whether he was a truthful witness as to the fact that he was deceived. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determining the credibility or otherwise of a witness, but when a witness gives or makes two statements which differ in material particulars there must necessarily be ground for believing that he is not a truthful witness. In this case it would be wrong to pretend that the complainant had not made two statements in respect of the same matter. I am, of course, referring to the letter P1 which he wrote to the State Secretary and also to his oral evidence. This letter was admitted as evidence for the prosecution and contained a number of things which could reasonably lead to the conclusion that it was written by the complainant. Quite apart from this there was also the evidence of the Assistance State Secretary which could have no room for doubt that it was the complainant who wrote the letter. Unfortunately in this case the learned president has avoided making a definite finding on this issue although he did suggest in his judgment that if the complainant had in fact written the letter he must be regarded as a liar. Nevertheless the learned president felt convicted that the complainant was a truthful witness in view of the corroborative evidence of PW7, PW9 and PW10 and having regard to the decisions of Thomson CJ in Khoon Chye Hin v. PP [1961] MLJ 105, CA and that of Gill J: in De Silva v. PP [1964] MLJ 81 With all due respect to the learned president it must be stated that except for the evidence of PW9, who was obviously an interested witness being the father of the complainant, the corroboration afforded by the evidence of PW10 was only in respect of the passing of