Judgment

Muniandy Kannayappan J:

Preface

[1] The matter at hand emanates from an application for criminal revision by the applicant who is also the accused (used interchangeably as applicant/ accused) at the Sessions Court who stands charged for offences of corruption pursuant to s 16(a)(B), punishable under s 24(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC Act/Act 694).

[2] The judicial act of revision by this Court in the exercise of its revisionary or supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to s 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC/Act 593) read together with s 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) is on the order made by the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) who had refused an application by accused for pre-trial disclosure of written statement of facts favourable to his defence signed under the hand of the respondent Public Prosecutor (PP) or any person conducting the prosecution. The application by the accused is pursuant to s 51A(1)(c) of the CPC which prescribes that the prosecution shall before the commencement of his trial of the corruption charges against him at the Sessions Court , deliver to the accused the said written statement of facts.

[3] The applicant has requested for the said statement, which is not unknown to the respondent but is in its possession. It is the following:

• When he was arrested and investigated into the offences of corruption allegedly committed by him, he has made cautioned statements to the MACC. Those cautioned statements are necessitated under the law pursuant to s 53(3) of the MACC Act which shall not be read in isolation but together with s 53(6) and (7) of the same Act, which altogether provides for the net effect of his failure to inform of any fact, which he could reasonably have been expected to mention when so informed to do via a notice in writing or otherwise.

• In the said cautioned statements, the accused has informed the MACC of the facts on which he intends to rely in his defence in Court during the trial. In other words, those facts mentioned form his line of defence and explanation to the accusations of corruption made against him.

• In law, that line of defence and explanation made, if it exculpates him from criminal liability, would in effect be exculpatory statements made to the MACC by him.

• It is those exculpatory statements which is requested for by him as it would be facts favourable to his defence at the trial.

• Aside that the accused has also sought information as to when a statement was recorded by the MACC from Dato Seri Hamzah bin Zainuddin (DSHZ), which according to him has a causal link, thus direct bearing with the charges preferred against him. It is his contention that he was charged for the offences of corruption in the morning of 10 May 2023 and it was only after that, in the evening of 10 May 2023, the MACC had pursued to record a statement pertaining to the subject matter of the preferred charges which directly refers to DSHZ.

• In view of the causal link and direct bearing of that fact on the preferred charges, it stands favourable to his defence. In other words, statement from DSHZ ought to have been recorded prior to institution of prosecution against the accused, as the gravamen of the preferred charges per se says the following clearly:

"... telah secara rasuah meminta bagi diri kamu satu suapan, iaitu wang sejumlah... daripada Hep Kim Hong yang merupakan Pengarah Urusan Asia Coding Centre Sdn Bhd... sebagai dorongan untuk seorang pegawai badan awam, iaitu Dato' Seri Hamzah bin Zainudin yang merupakan Menteri Dalam Negeri, melakukan suatu perkara yang dicadangkan, iaitu membantu Asia Coding Centre Sdn Bhd untuk mendapatkan apa-apa projek milik agensi- agensi di bawah Kementerian Dalam Negeri..."

Hence, the request for that fact from the respondent.

• To the request made for a written statement of facts favourable to his defence, the respondent had merely stated "Tiada yang diketahui". This turned out to be the bane in this matt