Lee Heng Cheong J:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]The Respondent, Arifin Bin Drahman was charged before the Sessions Court, Sibu with an offence under Section 17 (a)Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission Act 2009

[2]The learned Sessions Court Judge held that the Prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case against the Respondent at the end of the Prosecution’s case.

[3]The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the learned Sessions Court Judge’s order of acquittal and discharge, has filed this Appeal against the order of acquittal and discharge.

THE AMENDED CHARGE

[4]The amended Charge against the Respondent reads as follows:-

“That you on 26 November 2014, at about 1530 hrs, at Car Park Kuala Lama, in the District of Mukah, in the Mukah Division, in the State of Sarawak, as an agent of Government of Malaysia, to wit, Pembantu Perikanan Gred 22, attached to Jabatan Perikanan Laut Malaysia, Daerah Mukah, did corruptly agrees to accept for yourself a gratification, to wit, cash money of RM1,500.00, from one, Eirwan Bin Haini, as a reward for you to do an act in relation to your principal’s affair, to wit, to obtain a catering work of “Perkhidmatan menyediakan minuman pagi dan makan tengah hari untuk Majlis Pelancaran Tukun Tiruan Mukah 2014 di Dewan Pejabat Perikanan Laut Mukah” for Eirwan Bin Haini and that you have thereby committed an offence under Section 17 (a)Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission Act 2009and punishable under Section 24 (1)of the same Act.”

CONSIDERATION OF THE APPELLANT’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL

[5]The Appellant’s Petition of Appeal contained 12 grounds of appeal and they are as follows.

THE 1^ST GROUND OF APPEAL- DISCHARGE AND ACQUITTAL OF THE RESPONDENT

[6]The 1^st ground of appeal is that the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in law and in fact when he decided to discharge and acquit the Respondent in respect of the charge under Section 17 (a)Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009

[7]The essential ingredients of an offence under Section 17

[i]The Respondent at the time of the commission of the offence was a public servant; and

[ii]He corruptly agreed to accept the gratification in question as inducement or a reward.

[8]This Court finds that It is not disputed that at the material time, the Respondent was in the employment of a public body i.e. Jabatan Perikanan Malaysia.

[9]This Court finds that the Appellant has failed to adduce credible and sufficient evidence to prove the main element of the offence i.e. the acceptance of illegal gratification by the Respondent.

[10]To prove their case against the Respondent, the Appellant called 7 witnesses including the complainant [PW1]. From the recorded telephonic conversation [Exhibits P6(1) and P6(2)] between the Respondent and PW1, this Court finds that there is nothing there, to show that the Respondent had requested for the money from PW1.There was also no mention of the demand of the bribe and the time and place was also not stated during this conversation.

[11]This Court noted that the Appellant’s evidence showed that the Respondent did not take the alleged bribe money when they asked PW1, the following question during his examination in chief, at page 37 of 53 of the Notes of Proceedings, lines 16 – 20 as follows:-

“

Q:Kamu ada maklumkan kepada pegawai SPRM Arifin Bin Drahman tidak mengambil wang tersebut?

A:Ada, sewaktu saya beredar dari tempat parking kereta.“

[12]Thus it is clear that the Respondent did not take the money and there is no evidence that the gratification was paid or given or received corruptly as an inducement or reward done or forborne to do any act in relation to the affairs of that public body.

[13]The testimony of PW7 who is the Investigating Officer also showed that the bribe money was not accepted by the Respondent. In his examination in chief, PW7 testified said at pages 19 – 20 of the Notes of Proceedings as follows:-

“

Q:Adakah wang perangkap dalam kes ini berjaya diserahkan kepada OKT?

A:Semasa kejadian, OKT tidak menerima wang tersebut. Terdapat