Ambrose J:

In this case the first appellant was charged in the First Criminal District Counsel under s. 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960, with corruptly obtaining for himself a gratification as an inducement to show favour in relation to his principal's affairs. He was alleged to have committed the offence on 23 May, 1964, at about 5.40 p.m. at No. 327-G Tampines Road 7 milestone, Singapore. The charge alleged that he was a person serving under the Government as a police constable in the Royal Malaysia Police Force; that he being such a person corruptly obtained for himself from one Cha Ah Kaw a gratification of $100 as an inducement to show favour to the said Cha Ah Kaw, in relation to his principal's affairs; and that favour was to be shown by refraining from taking police action against the said Cha Ah Kaw for an alleged offence against certain provisions of the Traffic Ordinance. The first appellant was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

The second appellant was charged in the same case under s. 6(a) of the same Ordinance with corruptly attempting to obtain for the first appellant a gratification as an inducement to show favour in relation to his principal's affairs. He was alleged to have committed the offence on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. at the same place. The second appellant was convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

The first submission of Counsel for the first appellant proceeds as follows. According to the evidence of the prosecution, on 22 May 1964, Cha Ah Kaw was stopped by the first appellant, while he was riding Chia Wan Foong's motor cycle, to see if his user of the motor cycle was covered by a policy of insurance in respect of third-party risks; the first appellant was taken to Cha's house; there he was shown an insurance certificate which had expired and only covered Chia Wan Foong; and the first appellant told Cha that he could be fined $250. It was alleged that the first appellant was to show favour by refraining from taking police action against Cha for using a motor cycle whilst there was not in force in relation to the user of the motor cycle by Cha a policy of insurance in respect of third-party risks complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance, 1960. The prosecution, however, proved that at the material time there was an insurance policy covering the user of the motor cycle by Cha. No offence was therefore committed either by Cha or Chia Wan Foong. On the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there was accordingly nothing to report. Even if money was obtained by the first appellant, it was not obtained as an inducement to show favour to Cha in relation to the affairs of the principal of the first appellant. The first appellant was not acting in relation to the affairs of his principal by representing to Cha that he had committed an offence against the law because Cha had committed no offence. Counsel cites Hiralal Badlo V. Rex [1950] in support of his submission.

In my view, I cannot accede to this submission for the reason that the decision in Hiralal Badlo V. Rex [1950] was nullified by s. 9 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960. This subsection provides that where in proceedings for any offence under s. 6 (a) it is proved that an agent corruptly obtained any gratification, having reason to believe or suspect that it was offered as an inducement for showing any favour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs, he shall be guilty notwithstanding that such favour was not in relation to his principal's affairs.

The second submission of Counsel for the first appellant proceeds as follows. Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960, provides for punishment of an agent corruptly obtaining a gratification as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs, or for showing or forbearing to