The presumption of corruption under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act applies when there is sufficient evidence of gratification received, which the accused failed to rebut.

[1] The appellant Mohamad Nazri bin Rabani had been jointly charged and convicted with the other appellant Tonny Ramlee (both enforcement personnel with the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism) for acting in pursuance of a common intention under s 34 of the Penal Code to solicit and accept a bribe of RM600.00 on 14 July 2017 - under ss 16(a)(B) and 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 respectively - from one Chin Hau Jett, the proprietor of a sundry shop in Beaufort known as Jack Trading.

[2] The appellants were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and a fine of RM10,000.00 for each of the two charges, and in default of payment, a further term of 3 months imprisonment would take effect. Both imprisonment sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

[3] Eventually, the appellant Tonny Ramlee elected not to proceed with his appeal. That left Nazri as the sole appellant. He will be referred to as the appellant or by his name in the course of this judgment.

[4] The approach that a Court sitting in an appellate capacity takes is well-established. It will be slow to disturb the decision of a trial judge. It will only do so when, as held by Zawawi Salleh JCA (as he then was) in Mohd Yusri Mangsor & Anor v. PP [2014] 7 MLRA 369 ; 2014 MarsdenLR 1897 ; [2014] 7 CLJ 897 :

"(a) the judgment is based upon a wrong premise of fact or of law;

(b) there was insufficient judicial appreciation by the trial judge of the evidence of circumstances placed before him;

(c) the trial judge has completely overlooked the inherent probabilities of the case;

(d) that the course of events affirmed by the trial judge could not have occurred;

(e) the trial judge had made an unwarranted deduction based on faulty judicial reasoning from admitted or established facts; or

(f) the trial judge had so fundamentally misdirected himself that one may safely sat that no reasonable Court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion, then an appellate Court will intervene to rectify that error so that injustice is not occasioned."

[5] The appellant canvassed a number of grounds for his appeal, but it was not disputed that he is an officer of a public body within the meaning of s 3 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 .

[6] Documentary proof that Nazri held a position as an officer of a public body was adduced, and a certificate on his position was tendered under s 55 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 .

[7] Instead, the appellant attacked the testimony of PW7 (the complainant) and PW12 (the complainant's father who was present in the sundry shop on the day in question, viz, 14 July 2017).

[8] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that inconsistent with and contrary to the time set out in the charges and PW7's testimony that the offences were committed on that day between 1225pm and 1250pm, "PW12 had agreed that the time of the alleged offence of the Accused asking for monies happened on the in the morning and not on the afternoon as stated by the Complainant PW7." See Submission for the Appellant, encl 10, p 9, para 5.1.

[9] However, the submission is unmeritorious and un