Syed Agil Barakbah J:

The appellant was tried in the sessions Court, Port Dickson, on a charge of corruptly accepting an illegal gratification. He was convicted and fined $1,500 in default to six months' imprisonment by the learned president. Against this conviction he has now appealed. The learned public prosecutor has also filed a cross-appeal against inadequacy of sentence. The charge reads as follows:

That you on the 7 November 1968, at about 7.30 p.m. at your quarters PWD No. 215 Cunningham Road, Port Dickson, in the District of Port Dickson, in the State of Negri Sembilan, being an agent of the Government of Malaysia, to wit a Chief Inspector of Police, did corruptly accept a gratification, to wit a sum of $200 cash from one Ng Ngee @ Ng Ah Kam (m) as an inducement for forbearing to do an act in relation to your principal's affairs, to wit not

to proceed with the prosecution of the said Ng Ngee @ Ng Ah Kam on a charge of house breaking and theft by night under s. 457 Penal Code; alternatively dishonestly retaining stolen property under s. 411 Penal Code vide Port Dickson report No. 1577/66, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act No. 42/61.

Briefly, the facts of the prosecution are that the appellant arrested PW 1, PW 2 and one Mahadevan for theft of rubber. After they were charged in Court and allowed bail, it was alleged that the appellant approached PW 1 and stated that he could obtain the release of PW 1 and Mahadevan and a light sentence for PW 2 if PW 1 would pay him $200. This was agreed to by PW 1 who was asked to bring the money to the appellant's house later. PW 1 then went to see PW 2 and Mahadevan, informed them of the appellant's demand and suggested that he himself would pay $100 and PW 2 and Mahadevan would raise the other $100. Both PW 2 and Mahadevan agreed. However, PW 2 made a report of the matter to the Anti-Corruption Agency at Seremban and informed PW 1 about it the next day whereupon PW 1 also lodged another report. PW 1 was requested by the Anti-Corruption Agency to see the appellant in his house to confirm whether the appellant would still help to settle the case for $200. Having received confirmation PW 1 promised to bring the money that evening at about 7.00 p.m. on 7 November 1968, to the appellant. The same day at about 4.30 p.m., PW 1 was briefed by an Anti-Corruption Agency officer (PW6). He was to hand over $200 in cash to the appellant at the appellant's house that evening, if the appellant asked for it, but if he did not, PW 1 was to bring it back. Acting on arrangement PW 1 met PW 6 and other police officers at the Esso Refinery, Port Dickson, where an envelope containing $200 in $10 notes was handed by PW 6 to him. These notes were treated with anthracene powder by the Government Chemist (PW7) and their serial numbers were also recorded. After taking the notes from the envelope and putting them in his shirt pocket PW 1 then proceeded to the appellant's house alone in his car. On arrival he saw the appellant wiping his car in front of the house wearing a pair of khaki shorts and shirt. At the request of the appellant both sat under the porch and after the appellant had asked PW 1 whether he had brought the money PW 1 took out the $200 cash from his shirt pocket and handed it to the appellant who, according to PW 1 received it with his right hand and put the money into the right pocket of his shorts. He further requested PW 1 not to tell anyone about it. After talking for a while PW 1 left for the Esso Refinery where he met PW 6 and his party. After asking PW 1 to wait there PW 6 proceeded to a spot where a group of three Anti-Corruption Agency officers (PW 10, PW 11, PW 12) had been keeping observation on the appellant's house about 60 yards away. After waiting for about half an hour they all proceeded to the appellant's house. On arrival they found the appellant inside the house but the $200 cash could not be fo