Raja Azlan Shah J:

One Chandrasekaran, a checking clerk attached to the Accountant General's Department was convicted on two charges of knowingly using as genuine forgeries of two treasury vouchers to the value of $207,630 in contravention of s. 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment and fined $2,000. The evidence established that the said vouchers had been forged. He has not appealed. The appellants, both police officers attached to the Special Branch, were charged and convicted of abetting Chandrasekaran under s. 4(c) read with s. 11(a) of the Act. The first appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and fined $2,000 while the second appellant was sentenced to 2'bd years plus a fine of $2,000. If they are guilty then I must say that their conduct was iniquitous in the highest degree deserving the strongest condemnation by every man in this country, for it is essential to the welfare of society that policemen should uphold the law rather than break it when corrupted by greed. A fourth person PW 55 was also charged for abetment but the Court allowed him to give evidence for the prosecution under s. of the Act and at the end of the case he was given a certificate of indemnity.

This case discloses a conspiracy which was carefully planned, deliberately and boldly carried out. Undoubtedly a number of others were concerned in the conspiracy and the modus operandi clearly indicates that they were assured of co-operation from Chandrasekaran in the Accountant General's Department.

The gist of the prosecution case against Chandrasekaran was this. Two forged treasury vouchers, purportedly emanating from the trade division of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for the purchase of insecticide worth $111,889.50 and $95,740.50 from M/s. Kee Cheong of No. 43A, Kampong Dollah, Kuala Lumpur, together with forged supporting documents, were presented to the Accountant-General's Department for payment. Chandrasekaran was the only clerk concerned with the detailed checking and he approved them. It is quite clear that, but for Chandrasekaran's connivance in the fraud, the two vouchers could not possibly have been approved. Chandrasekaran's conduct provides ample evidence of his guilt, for it cannot be reconciled with his innocence. I am thus perfectly satisfied that he had been rightly convicted.

A fraud having been perpetrated on the Government, the question arising in this appeal is whether the fraud was the result of a conspiracy; if so, whether each of the appellants was involved in that conspiracy.

The provision relating to abetment of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act is contained in s. 11 of the Act and abetment bears the same meaning as in the Penal Code.Section 107 of the Penal Code brings conspiracy within the definition of abetment as follows:

A person abets the doing of a thing who... Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing.

And explanation two of the section reads:

Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Conspiracy is defined in s. 120A of the Penal Code. In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy there must be a combination of two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act, which is not illegal, by illegal means and that act or omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing. It is not necessary that the abettor should himself be directly involved as a participant in the offence committed. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed. In a conspi