Eusoff Chin CJ:

[1] I have studied the grounds of judgment written by both my learned brothers Tan Sri Mohd Azmi FCJ and Tan Sri Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ. I agree with and fully support the judgment written by Tan Sri Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ, and its reasonings.

[2] The crux of the arguments before us is centred on the interpretation of s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states:

180. Procedure When the case for the prosecution is concluded the Court, if it after finds that no case against the accused has been made out which conclusion if unrebutted would warrant his conviction shall record an order of case for of acquittal, or, if it does not so find, shall call on the accused prosecution to enter on his defence.

[4] When, at the close of the case for the prosecution, every ingredient is proved, then there is a case for the accused to answer.

[5] When the case for the prosecution is concluded it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise and evaluate the evidence and to decide whether or not there is a case for the accused to answer.

[6] If there is no case to answer, the Court will acquit and discharge the accused person.

[7] If there is a case to answer, then the Court will call in the accused to enter on his defence.

[8] When calling the accused to enter on his defence, three alternatives are open to the accused by which he can rebut the case for the prosecution. These must be explained to the accused, and they are:

(i) he can give evidence on oath from the witness box and be subject to cross-examination, or

(ii) he can give an unsworn statement from the dock, or

(iii) he can remain silent.

[9] Whatever alternative he elects, he is at liberty to call his witness or witnesses to testify on his behalf. Assuming that the accused person elects to remain silent and does not wish to call any witness or produce any document for his defence then he will have failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the Court must be prepared, there and then, to convict the accused person of the offence charged.

[10] This is the requirement of s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

[11] The question of major importance before the Court is: What is the standard of proof required of the prosecution at the close of its case having regard to the provisions of s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code Is it proof beyond reasonable doubt, or is it a mere prima facie supposition that the accused person may be guilty of the offence charged.

[13] In my view, the same standard of proof applies at the intermediate stage of the trial, ie at the close of the prosecution.

[14] My interpretation of s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code leads to the same conclusion as appears in the judgment of Tan Sri Edgar Joseph Jr, that is, the standard of proof required on the prosecution at all stages of the hearing is one of beyond reasonable doubt.

[16] The accused is acquitted and discharged.

Lamin PCA:

[17] I have had the opportunity of reading the draft judgments of my brother Judges Mohd Azmi FCJ and Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ.

[18] I do not propose to get into an involved discussion on the standard of proof required in our criminal law or on the distinction between the " prima facie case" and "beyond reasonable doubt case" because it has been exhaustively undertaken by them with astounding efficacy.

[19] However I wish to say a few words on them before I make my preference for either of the two judgments.

[20] The expression " prima facie case" as we all know is not found in our law but it has been regularly used perhaps, as my brother Judge, Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ says for "brev