Section 122(1) of the Securities Industry Act doesn't violate presumption of innocence; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[1] On 9 May 2016, the High Court, under ss 84(4) and 85 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 , framed and referred the following "constitutional issues" to this Court for determination:

(1) whether s 122(1) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA 1983) violates arts 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution on the basis that it abrogates the fundamental right of an accused person to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

(2) whether s 122(1) of the SIA 1983 violates arts 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution on the basis that it abrogates the fundamental right of an accused that a criminal charge must be proven by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

(3) whether s 122(1) of the SIA 1983 violates art 121 of the Federal Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers on the basis that it usurps the judicial powers of the Court by deeming that a Director, Chief Executive Officer or representative of the body corporate has committed an offence where an offence has been committed by the body corporate?

(4) whether the continued prosecution of the accused in this case for the alternative charge under s 122(1) of SIA 1983 after his acquittal on the principal charge under s 86 of the same Act is in violation of art 7(2) of the Federal Constitution?

(5) Whether an arbitrary and indiscriminate use of s 122(1) of the SIA 1983 as alternative charge in this case is inconsistent with art 8(1) of the Federal Constitution?

[2] The respondent and one Khiudin Mohd, both Directors of Transmile Group Berhad were charged at the Sessions Court with the commission of the following offences under the Securities Industry Act 1983 (SIA) (since repealed by the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 which came into force on 28 September 2007):

Principal Charge

"That you, between 28 February 2006 to 15 February 2007 at Bursa Malaysia abetted Transmile Group Berhad in making a statement that is misleading in a material particular in Transmile Group Berhads Quarterly Report on Unaudited Consolidated Results for the Financial Year Ended 31 December 2006 and the misleading statement is underlined in red in the appendix to this charge, and the said statement is likely to induce the purchase of securities of Transmile Group Berhad by other persons, and when the statement was made Transmile Group Berhad ought reasonably to have known that the statement is misleading in a material particular, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 86(b) read together with s 122C(c) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 and punishable under s 88B of the same Act."

Alternative charge

"That Transmile Group Berhad between 14 February 2007 and 15 February 2007 at Bursa Malaysia has committed an offence under s 122B(a)(bb) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 when it, with intent to deceive, furnished a misleading statement to Bursa Malaysia in Transmile Group Berhads Quarterly Report on Unaudited Consolidated Results for the Financial Year Ended 31 December 2006 and the misleading statement is underlined in red in the appendix to this charge and that you, who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director of Transmile Group Berhad, are deemed to have committed an offence under s 122B(a)(bb) read together with s 122(1) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 , and punishable under s 122B of the same Act."

[3] At the close of the prosecution case, the tr