JUDGMENTBY: AUGUSTINE PAUL J

In this case, the appellant was found guilty by the learned sessions court judge at Melaka for soliciting sexual favours from one Iee Bee Fong (the complainant), a female, on 17 June 1995 at 12pm at the Immigration Office, Melaka under s 3(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 (the Act) and for attempting to obtain sexual favours from her on 17 June 1995 at 8.30pm at the Tip Top Guest House (the guesthouse) under s 4(a) of the Act. He was convicted on both the charges and sentenced to three years imprisonment in respect of the first charge and one and a half years imprisonment in respect of the second charge. This appeal is by the appellant against the convictions and sentences imposed.

The facts of the case

On 7 June 1995, the complainant went to the Immigration Department at Melaka to renew her Restricted Malaysia-Singapore and International Passports. Her passport did not have the required stamp for having entered Singapore. She met the appellant who told her that not having the stamp on the passport is an offence. She asked him for help as it was her first offence and that she did not know that it was wrong. He then told her to renew her restricted passport first and meet him later at the office canteen. When she did not find him, there she met him in his office. He interviewed her again. She again asked him for help. He wrote his handphone, house and office telephone numbers on a white card and gave it to her saying that she could contact him through any one of those numbers. When she received the card from him, she again asked him for help. As she said in her evidence:

Selepas saya terima kad itu, saya masih minta pertolongan daripada

tertuduh dan tertuduh menjawab: Saya telah pun memberi banyak tips

kepada anda tapi awak masih tidak dapat faham lagi. I then asked him

in English, Why cant you be straightforward? Tertuduh: Tak boleh

terus terang sangat. Tertuduh kata dia menolong saya cukup dengan

membuat temu bual itu. Kemudian dia suruh saya panggil dia. Lepas itu

saya pun balik.

She added that she forgot to mention in the earlier part of her evidence that the appellant had asked her ... adakah awak suka keluar dengan saya. To a question as to what gave her the impression that the appellant wanted sexual favours from her, she said:

Daripada soalan adakah awak suka keluar dengan saya dan dengan

cara-cara dia bercakap dengan saya dan dengan senyuman dia dan cara dia

pandang saya.

On 10 June 1995, she made a report to the Anti-Corruption Agency (the BPR) at Melaka. On the evening of that day, one Ong Cheng Hian (PW5), an officer from the BPR, came to her house. He fixed a tape recorder to her telephone and asked her to call the appellant. She narrated a part of the conversation which is as follows:

Saksi: Bila boleh dapat pasport saya?

Tertuduh:Sabarlah. Mahu ingin ajak saya keluar.

Saksi: Bagaimana pasport saya? (Saya ajak tertuduh keluar ke

coffeehouse di Hotel Ramada pada 8.30 petang pada hari itu sahaja.)

She then went to the Ramada Hotel with a concealed tape recorder provided by the BPR. When the accused arrived, both of them went to the coffeehouse of the hotel. While there she asked him whether he had brought her passport. He told her to be patient and asked her the manner of booking a room in the hotel. She told him to find out from the receptionist. He found that the hotel was fully booked. When she refused his request to follow him to the guesthouse, he asked her to go out with him in a weeks time and asked her to call him.

On 17 June 1995, she went to the BPR office at about 10am and phoned the appellant at his office. PW5 fixed a tape recorder to the telephone. She then narrated a part of the conversation which runs as follows:

Encik Ali (tertuduh) kata Hello Darling!

Saksi: Saya tanya Encik Ali kah?

Encik Ali (tertuduh): Ya.

Saksi: Bagaimana dengan pasport saya?

Enci