The prosecution failed to prove corrupt intent under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the evidence showed the respondent acted within legal bounds related to business commissions.

[1] Dato' Saidin bin Thamby ("respondent") was charged on 15 September 1999 in the Shah Alam Sessions Court ("trial Court") for committing an offence of corruption under s 3(a)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 (Revised 1971) Act 57 ("PCA") for corruptly receiving from one Dato' Dr Hanifah bin Nordin (SP1), the managing director of a company known as Syarikat Nusantara Network Sdn Bhd ("Nusantara"), for himself a gratification of RM1 million vide a crossed Malayan Banking cash cheque no: 170871 marked as exh "P12" ("cheque") as a remuneration for assisting Nusantara in obtaining the approval of the Selangor State Exco in respect of Nusantara's application for a piece of state land comprised in a portion of Lot 4287, Seksyen Pekan Batu Caves, Mukim Selayang having an area of 209,632.5 square feet ("land").

[2] At the close of the prosecution's case before the trial Court, the charge was amended and that amended charge against the respondent was worded in the Malay language as follows:

"Bahawa kamu pada 15 Mac 1997, lebih kurang pukul 12.00 malam, di No 2, Jalan Selaseh 4, Taman Selaseh, Batu Caves, dalam Daerah Gombak, di dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah secara rasuah menerima untuk diri kamu suatu suapan, iaitu sekeping cek Malayan Banking Berhad nombor 170871, berjumlah RM1 juta, daripada Dato' Dr Hanifah bin Nordin, bekas Pengerusi Eksekutif Syarikat Nusantara Network Sdn Bhd, sebagai upah kepada kamu kerana telah melakukan suatu perbuatan, iaitu membantu syarikat itu dalam permohonan tanah Kerajaan di sebahagian Lot 4287, Section 4, Pekan Batu Caves, Mukim Batu, Daerah Gombak, Selangor untuk mendapatkan kelulusan Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, di mana permohonan itu telah diluluskan oleh Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor pada 4 Oktober 1995, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 3(a)(i) Akta Pencegah Rasuah 1961 (Akta 57), yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama."

[3] It must be stated that the underlined word "bekas" was the only amendment made to the original charge on 31 October 2000 at the close of the prosecution's case. The prosecution called 28 witnesses. When the respondent's defence was called, the respondent elected to give his evidence under oath and he also called eight other witnesses.

[4] At the close of the defence case, the respondent was found guilty by the trial Court and convicted as per the amended charge and sentenced to one (1) year imprisonment, and fined RM10,000.00 in default six (6) months' imprisonment and was also ordered to pay the penalty of RM1 million to the Federal Government.

[5] The respondent appealed to the High Court against his conviction and sentence. The Public Prosecutor ("appellant") filed a cross-appeal against sentence.

[6] Before the High Court, the respondent's appeal against his conviction and sentence was allowed. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the respondent's conviction and sentence as well as the penalty. The respondent was acquitted and discharged by the High Court and he was set free. The High Court also dismissed the cross-appeal by the appellant.