Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3425
HIGH COURT (JOHOR BAHRU)
ABDUL MALIK ISHAK, J
HAMIDON BIN MAT YATIM – Plaintiff
Versus
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Defendant
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 42–6 OF 1994
Nordin Hussin (Tia and Nordin) for the appellant.
Ahmad bin Bache (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.
Public servants convicted under corruption laws may have the burden of proof shift towards them to disprove solicitation allegations by clear evidence such as recordings or corroborative testimonies.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961 - Section 4(a) - Conviction for soliciting and receiving bribe - Appellant, a public servant, was convicted of corruptly receiving a bribe to expedite the processing of a birth certificate application. Evidence included a tape-recorded conversation and corroborating witness testimony. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 14)
(B) Accomplice testimony - The court ruled that the complainant was not an accomplice, emphasizing that his actions were motivated by the appellant's solicitation of a bribe and not by a joint intent to commit the crime. (Paras 29, 34)
(C) Burden of proof - Once the elements of corruption are established, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the presumption of corruption as stipulated under section 14 of the Act. (Paras 44, 50)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a government officer, was accused of accepting RM500.00 from the complainant in exchange for expediting a late birth registration for the complainant's daughter, amid evidence of solicitation for the bribe.
Findings of Court:
The evidence, including a recording of the bribe demand, led to the confirmation of the appellant's guilt, while the trial court's verdict was affirmed.
Issues: Whether the complainant was an accomplice and if the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's actions were in response to the appellant's solicitation, removing any claim of him being an accomplice. The evidence was deemed sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
The Sessions Court, Johor Bahru ("trial court") convicted the appellant for an offence undersection 4 (a) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1961 ("PCA") and sentenced him to a fine of RM8,000.00 in default four (4) months' imprisonment and additionally a penalty of RM500.00 was imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant lodged an appeal.
Before the trial court, the appellant was charged as follows:
" Bahawa kamu pada 31.12.1992 jam lebih kurang 12.45 tengah hari di Bahagian Pendaftaran Kelahiran, Kematian dan Anak Angkat, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Johor Bahru, Tingkat 1, Blok A, Wisma Persekutuan, Johor Bahru, dalam Daerah Johor Bahru, dalam Negeri Johor, sebagai ejen kerajaan Malaysia, iaitu Penolong Pengarah Pendaftaran di Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Johor Bahru secara rasuah menerima suatu suapan, iaitu wang tunai RM500.00 daripada Rasul bin Dahri sebagai satu dorongan untuk melakukan suatu perbuatan berhubong dengan hal ehwal prinsipal kamu iaitu untuk memproses permohonan pendaftaran lewat kelahiran anak kepada Rasul iaitu Samirah bte Rasul supaya di pertimbangkan untuk kelulusan Pendaftaran Besar Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Petaling Jaya dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan dan boleh di dakwa di bawah seksyen 4 (a) Akta Pencegah Rasuah, 1961 (Undang–Undang Malaysia Akta 57)."
Within a broad perspective, the facts are as follows. Rasul's (the complainant) second wife gave birth to a baby girl by the name of Samirah on June 5, 1991, Rasul took time to report the birth of his daughter and when he decided to do so at the Johor Bahru Central Police Station he was advised to proceed to Pejabat Pendaftaran, Johor Bahru for that purpose. At the Pejabat Pendaftaran, Rasul was attended to at the counter by Halimah bte Jumaat (SP 5) ("Halimah") who gave him a form to fill. After Rasul completed filling the form and obtained the necessary signatures he went to see Halimah and handed her that form (P3). In due course, Halimah handed the form (P3) to the appellant who was supposed to fix the date for an interview. The first interview was scheduled on November 24, 1992 but Rasul failed to turn up and the second interview was then fixed on December 29, 1992. At this second interview, the appellant interviewed Rasul and his second wife by the name of Hasnah bt Mohd. Said ("Hasnah") together with two nurses (Mariam binti Abdul Kadri (SP3) and Juriah bte Yahya (SP4). The first to be interviewed was Rasul's wife and this was followed by Rasul himself. For the purpose of this appeal, I need only narrate briefly what transpired at that interview between Rasul and the appellant.
Rasul testified that at that interview the appellant scolded him for coming late. The appellant then told Rasul that there was a posibility that his daughter might not be issued with the birth certificate or if issued there would be a delay of three (3) to four (4) years. Rasul then pleaded with the appellant to expedite his application as he wanted to bring his daughter to Singapore. The appellant was then heard to have said that he could not help unless Rasul helped himself. The appellant then said that Singaporeans would be charged RM5,000.00 but because Rasul was a Malay he only had to pay RM2,000.00. Rasul again pleaded with the appellant and after much hassles the appellant relented and agreed to accept RM700.00 and requested Rasul to bring the money the next day.
There was evidence that Rasul is a Singaporean.
Immediately after that nasty encounter with the appellant, Rasul telephoned the Badan Pencegah Rasuah, Johor Bahru ("BPR") at about 3.15 p.m and he was told to proceed to the BPR's office. Rasul went to the BPR's office and met Alias bin Salleh (SP8) ("Alias") and there he narrated the incident that took place at the appellant's office. As it was getting late and as the next day was a public holiday, Rasul was requested to come again on December 31, 1992.
Thus, on December 31, 1992 when Rasul turned up
