The appellant in this case was convicted by the Magistrate Court of the First Class at Labuan on a charge under section 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961, and was sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay a sum of $60/- under section 13 of the said Act. He appealed against sentence and conviction.

I heard the appeal on October 6, 1981 and allowed it. I ordered a retrial in this case. I said I would reduce the grounds of my decision in writing which I now do.

The petition of appeal contained seven grounds, most of which are overlapping. Counsel for the appellant decided, I think correctly, at the outset of the heating to pursue two of the grounds only. In view of the order for retrial which I have made I do not think I should go into the evidence or comment on it too far.

Very briefly the case for the prosecution was that the appellant as a police officer demanded and obtained a sum of $60/- from P.W.4 for forbearing to take any action against P.W.4 in respect of a traffic offence. The defence very shortly was that the sum of $60/- received by the appellant was repayment of a loan which appellant had made to P.W.4 as evidenced by a letter signed by P.W.4.

The most important witness for the prosecution was undoubtedly P.W.4. He gave evidence regarding the circumstances which led to the demand for payment of the $60/- by appellant and the actual payment of the money to appellant. This witness was cross-examined by Counsel for appellant at great length. There were a number of discrepancies in his testimony and because of this the learned trial Magistrate regarded him as an unreliable witness. She, however, did not state whether she rejected the whole of the testimony given by this witness. She appeared to have relied on part of the evidence of this witness in her judgment. The fact that there are discrepancies in a witness' testimony does not straight-away make him an unreliable witness and make the whole of his evidence unacceptable. It is open to the court having observed the demeanour of the witness and after careful consideration of such discrepancies to accept parts of the witness' evidenceif it considers them to be true. It is important, in my view, for the trial Magistrate to state clearly whether the testimony of a certain witness whom he or she considers as unreliable is to be disregarded completely. In considering the discrepancies the court should take into account the educational background and experience of the witness and whether the witness is describing events which have taken place recently or a long time ago and the demeanour. It was contended by counsel for the appellant that since the learned trial Magistrate had considered P.W.4 as unreliable she should not have called upon the appellant to make his defence. I do not think I can fully agree with counsel on this. The learned trial Magistrate could have made the decision not to call upon the appellant to make his defence. There was, however, evidence apart from the testimony of P.W.4, that the sum of $60/- was in fact received by the appellant. This coupled with the fact that the appellant was a police officer would appear to be sufficient to raise the presumption under section 14 of the Act which reads:—

"where in any proceedings against a person for an offence under section 3 or 4 it is proved that any gratification has been paid or given to or received by a person in the employment of any public body, such gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as an inducement or reward as hereinafter mentioned, unless the contrary is proved."

The defence called one Martin Pandin (D.W.2) who was an Assistant District Officer in Labuan, as a witness. His testimony, if believed, would have corroborated the appellant's story that the $60/- was a repayment of the loan. According to this witness the appellant and his father-in-law came to his office and showed him a document. He called the complainant