The appellants were tried in the Sessions Court, Kangar for charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 ('the Act').

The first charge against them was under s 4(a) of the Act, ie for accepting bribes of RM2,000. The second charge was under s 3(a)(ii) of the Act, ie for soliciting bribes of RM2,000. They were both acquitted and discharged on the second charge and convicted on the first charge. The first appellant was sentenced to one day's imprisonment and a fine of RM5,000 in default one year's imprisonment and ordered to pay a penalty of RM2,000. The second appellant was sentenced to one day's imprisonment and a fine of RM3,000 in default six months' imprisonment and was also ordered to pay a penalty of RM2,000.

They have now appealed against their conviction. There is also a cross-appeal by the learned deputy public prosecutor against sentence.

Before me the conviction was attacked on the following grounds:

(1) The learned sessions judge erred in law and in fact when having found the complainant ('PW6') to be a trap witness he failed to consider or consider adequately that before accepting PW6's evidence there ought to be corroboration.

(2) The learned sessions judge had seriously misdirected himself in that after disbelieving PW7's evidence and his credibility, he had gone on to consider events which took place on 29 January 1994 at the Kangar Court and Hospital as forming a series of transaction with events happening at the Padang Besar Police Station and at the scene of the crime in the first charge and had thus taken into account irrelevant, inadmissible and gravely prejudicial evidence against the appellant.

(3) The learned sessions judge did not consider or consider adequately that the contents of P15 A and B (pocket diary) clearly contradict the thrust of the prosecution case and further rebuts the presumption that may operate against the appellant.

Alternatively, the learned sessions judge did not consider or consider adequately that the presumptions against the appellants who were charged under the Act do not necessarily require rebuttal by the defence evidence and that they may be rebutted by circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence.

(4) The learned sessions judge did not consider or consider adequately that the prosecution had led two sets of evidence which contradict with each other and thus was unreliable evidence.

(5) The learned sessions judge failed to give adequate and dispassionate consideration to the defence evidence including the appellants' evidence which was overwhelming and convincing, more than sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. By reason of the aforesaid, the conviction of the appellants on the said charge is therefore not only against the weight of evidence but also unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

In considering the first ground of appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the learned sessions judge at p 223 of the appeal record where he stated:

Berdasarkan fakta kes ini, mahkamah mendapati bahawa SP6 bukanlah rakan sejenayah tetapi mahkamah memutuskan bahawa beliau adalah saksi perangkap. Walau bagaimanapun, mahkamah mesti berpuashati bahawa keterangan SP6 adalah betul dan disokong oleh kenyataan yang lain.

There is no doubt that the learned sessions judge recognized the need for corroboration of PW6's evidence but had he, in his judgment, identified and evaluated the corroborative evidence? I had diligently searched for such evidence but nowhere could I find any. There was no mention whatsoever about the corroborative evidence in the judgment of the learned sessions judge. On the contrary, this is what he said in his judgment at para E, p 223 of the appeal record:

Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan SP7 dan secara keseluruhan berpendapat bahawa keterangan SP7 di dalam kes ini tidak dapat membantu keterangan SP6. Keterangan SP7 menyatakan kedua-dua orang dituduh ada meminta wang sebanyak RM2,000 daripada mereka