GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Court Judge, Batu Pahat upon the following charges preferred against him:-

PERTUDUHAN PERTAMA

Bahawa kamu pada bulan Ogos 2001, pada 10 malam, digerai Ikan Bakar Teck Soon, dalam Restoran Fook Hwa, Jalan Haji Manan dalam Daerah Kluang, dalam Negeri Johor, sebagai seorang ejen Kerajaan Malaysia iaitu Sarjan Polis No. RF 75684 yang bertugas di Unit Pengurusan, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kluang, Johor, telah secara rasuah meminta untuk diri kamu sendiri satu suapan iaitu wang tunai sebanyak RM1,000.00 (Ringgit Malaysia: Seribu) melalui seorang bernama Lee Siew Lian, sebagai satu dorongan untuk kamu melakukan satu perbuatan yang ada hubungan dengan hal ehwal principal kamu, iaitu menutup kertas siasatan No. 789/01 atas Kluang Report 4563/01 dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 10 (a) (aa) Akta Pencegah Rasuah 1997 (Akta No. 575) dan boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 16 Akta yang sama.

PERTUDUHAN KEDUA

Bahawa kamu pada 26 September 2002, pada jam antara 6 petang hingga 7 petang, digerai Ikan Bakar Teck Soon dalam Restoran Fook Hwa, Jalan Haji Manan, dalam Daerah Kluang, dalam Negeri Johor, sebagai seorang ejen Kerajaan Malaysia, iaitu Sarjan Polis No. RF 75684 telah memperolehi bagi diri kamu sendiri, suatu suapan, iaitu wang tunai sebanyak RM 500.00 daripada seorang bernama Foo Leng melalui seorang bernama Lee Siew Lian dimana suapan tersebut adalah sebagai satu dorongan untuk kamu melakukan suatu perbuatan yang ada hubungan dengan hal ehwal principal kamu, iaitu menutup Kertas Siasatan No. 789/01 atas Kluang Report 4563/01, dan dengan ini kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 11 (a) Akta Pencegah Rasuah 1997 dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 16 Akta yang sama.

Upon an appeal lodged before me, the conviction and sentence in respect of the first charge was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the same. However the appeal against the second charge was dismissed and the conviction and sentence thereof affirmed. The Public Prosecutor is now appealing against the decision in respect of the first charge and conversely the appellant is also appealing against the decision regarding the second charge. I proposed to deal with these two appeals together.

The facts in brief are as follows:-

On 31.5.2001, SP-1 (Foo Leng) had lodged a police report vide Kluang Report No. 4563/2001 over an incident whereby her husband, SP-3 (Tong Chee Hiong) was assaulted by several people. SP-13 (ASP Sulaiman bin A. Hamid) in his capacity as the Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah, IPD Kluang instructed the appellant to investigate the report classified under s. 323 of the Penal Code.

As there was no progress in the investigation, SP-1 proceeded to meet the appellant to withdraw the said report. Thereafter, it was alleged that the appellant started frequenting gerai Ikan Bakar Teck Soon, run by SP-1 and assisted by his adopted grandson, SP-2, demanding money from SP-1 in order to close the investigation papers (No. 789/01) which was opened pursuant to the report lodged by SP-1.

Sometimes in August 2001, while SP-1 was away in Singapore, the appellant came and met SP-2 at the said gerai and demanded RM1,000.00 or otherwise it would be difficult to withdraw the report or close the case. SP-2 conveyed this demand to SP-1. According to SP-2, the appellant followed up with this demand with further visits to the gerai.

The first charge was based upon this demand or request.

SP-2 added that on 12.9.2002 the appellant again came to the gerai, looking for SP-1 to sign certain documents. Again SP-1 was away in Singapore at the material time. The appellant then left the gerai leaving behine his telephone number on a piece of paper (exhibit P-3) with instructions to SP-2 to inform SP-1 to call him upon her return from Singapore. SP-2 accordingly informed SP-1 of the appellant's visit and the purpose of his visit.

At about 10.00 pm on 24.9.2002 (SP-2 says it was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document