Syed Agil Barakbah J:

[1] This is an application under s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code for additional evidence to be adduced at the hearing of the appeal. The evidence intended to be adduced is from one Mohd Yusof bin Ladin to the effect that Abdul Jalil bin Nordin (PW8) had committed perjury at the trial of the appellant before the President, Sessions Court, Kangar, on 3 April 1974. The charge against the appellant was for corruptly accepting a gratification under s 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961. He was found guilty of the charge by the Learned President, convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment. In addition a penalty of $130 under s 13 of the Act was imposed. Against this conviction and sentence he has now appealed. At the trial the appellant was represented by Counsel.

[2] The brief facts of the case were that two trawler boats belonging to the complainant Abu bin Suleiman (PW6) were detained by the appellant, a police corporal attached to the Marine Branch, Kuala Perlis, and the taikong and crew were charged for operating them without licence. While PW6 was setting in a coffee shop it was alleged that the appellant went and spoke to him and threatened to make further arrests if PW6 did not pay him a sum of money. Thereafter PW6 consulted his younger brother and after seeing a lawyer he went and made a report to the Anti-Corruption Agency. Subsequently on 9 November 1973 as prearranged, the appellant went to a coffee shop at Kuala Perlis and sat in a room with one ASP Ani. Subsequently the complainant came into the room and handed an envelope containing $130 marked notes under the table to the appellant. After taking the envelope the appellant left the room and returned subsequently followed by Abdul Jalil (PW8). The complainant then left the room, gave a signal to two Anti-Corruption Agency officials who came into the room. They searched the three persons and subsequently found the envelope containing the marked notes in the pocket of Abdul Jalil. (PW8). According to PW8 the appellant handed the envelope to him for safe-keeping when both of them went out of the shop earlier.

[3] In his defence the appellant admitted the complainant came to see him in the coffee shop but that no envelope containing the money was ever passed to him by PW6. He only stated that after PW6 asked him whether he could be of any help regarding the boats that were detained, the appellant replied in the negative and advised him to see a lawyer.

[4] ASP Ani appeared as a defence witness. According to him he did not see any envelope being passed but he explained, as accepted by the learned President, that he was fully occupied with pouring beer into glasses and did not pay any attention.

[5] The point in issue relates to the evidence of PW8 on whom the marked notes were found. Further evidence that is sought to be adduced was for the purpose of rebutting his evidence given at the trial during examination-in-chief, viz. "Before that day I did not know PW6". There was no cross-examination on that issue. In the affidavit attached to the Notice of Motion the appellant states that after the appeal had been filed he came to know that PW6 and PW8 had known each other before he was arrested. A statutory declaration sworn on 15 March 1975, by Mohd Yusof bin Ladin is also annexed. It states, inter alia, that he knows PW6, PW8 and the corporal and has seen PW6 and PW8 many times together having food at a stall next to his in Kuala Perlis before the arrest of the appellant on the corruption charge. From his observation they are good friends. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant had that been known earlier before the trial, PW8 could have been impeached on the matter and the learned President would not have accepted his evidence in toto as he has done in this case wherein he stated in his grounds of judgment that he was fully convinced that PW8 was a witness of truth. Further, since this matter came to light on