Rigby J (delivering oral judgment):

This is an appeal brought by the learned DPP on the ground that the sentence imposed by the learned President upon the respondent was manifestly inadequate having regard to the nature of the offence committed.

The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge preferred against him of criminal breach of trust in respect of moneys committed to his trust in his capacity as a public servant. At the material time the respondent was a Market Cashier of the City Council, George Town, Penang, and it was his duty to collect rent from stall holders from the Perak Road Market and various other markets. Some time in November 1959, two cash books were found in a street in Penang. They were handed over to the City Council and inspected by the Auditor. As a result of that investigation it was made apparent that the respondent had issued receipts to various stall holders for moneys received from them but had apparently entered a lesser amount in his books. The amount involved, it is true, was the relatively small amount of $190, and it was for the misappropriation of that amount over the periods of July and August 1959, to which the respondent pleaded guilty. The learned President bound him over in the sum of $500 for a period of two years, together with one surety in the like amount, and it is against that sentence that the Public Prosecutor appeals.

In the case of PP v. Ismail bin Loyok [1958] MLJ 223 Mr. Justice Smith had this to say:

The object of punishing crime is not only to punish the offender but also to deter others. Although it is desirable that the first offender should if possible be kept from coming into contact with hardened criminals, nevertheless other public servants submitted to temptations will not be deterred from succumbing

to temptation if they see that the only punishment which it involves is some form of binding over. Until it is understood by all public servants in this country that the normal punishment for helping themselves to public money is to be sent to prison there will continue to be (sic) (some) weak-willed persons prepared to pilfer the till".

With that expression of opinion I find myself in whole-hearted agreement. It seems to me of cardinal importance that it should be clearly appreciated and understood that in cases where public officers, placed in a position of trust and, by virtue of that position, handling public funds, think fit to misappropriate to themselves part of those public funds, the right and proper punishment, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary, is one of imprisonment. If the respondent in this case had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment I would certainly not have interfered.

In mitigation, however, it was urged on his behalf that he had been 31 years in the service of the City Council and had risen from the position of a peon to that of Chief Cashier. He was a married man with three children. It was urged that at the time he committed this offence his wife had been seriously ill as a result of a recent confinement and that the respondent in consequence was worried and in some financial difficulty. The Assistant Secretary to the City Council himself gave evidence on behalf of the respondent and said that he was a man with an excellent record and had hitherto been regarded as a man of integrity.

One of the matters that, if I may say so with respect, seems to me somewhat surprising in this case is that the City Council, having themselves reported the matter of this dishonesty to the Police for action to be taken, themselves permitted the respondent to resign before the charge against him which resulted in his pleading guilty to that charge, had been heard. I must confess that it seems to me a matter of some surprise that the resignation in such circumstances should have been accepted, rather than that the City Council should have dismissed him for dishonesty as a result of the criminal conviction against him. However, it may