JUDGMENT

Su Geok Yiam J:

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the convictions and sentences which were handed down on him by the learned Shah Alam Sessions Court Judge (the "trial judge") on 29 July 2008.

Facts And Background

[2] The appellant, a police sergeant in the Royal Malaysian Police Force at the material time, was charged with 2 counts of corruption under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (Act 575) (the "Act").

The 2 Charges

[3] The 1st charge alleged that he had on 11 January 2003 at about 2.30pm in the compound of the Kuala Kubu Baru Police Station, in the Hulu Selangor District, as an agent of the Malaysian Government, to wit, a police sergeant of the Royal Malaysian Police, corruptly solicited for himself cash of RM2000.00 from Subramaniam s/o Mogan as an inducement to release the son of Subramaniam, namely, Prakash s/o Subramaniam, who was detained by the Royal Malaysian Police of the Hulu Selangor District because of his suspected involvement in a robbery case and that he had thereby committed an offence under s 10(a)(bb) of the Act and punishable under s 16 of the Act.

[4] The 2nd amended charge alleged that he had on 12 January 2003 at about 2.30am at the roadside of Jalan Ampang 22, Taman Ampang Pecah, in the Hulu Selangor District, as an agent of the Malaysian Government, to wit, a police sergeant, corruptly obtained for himself a gratification, to wit, cash of RM1000.00 from Subramaniam s/o Mogan as an inducement to release the son of Subramaniam, namely, Prakash s/o Subramaniam, who was detained by the Royal Malaysian Police of the Hulu Selangor District because of his suspected involvement in a robbery case and that he had thereby committed an offence under s 11(a) of the Act and punishable under s 16 of the Act.

[5] The 2nd original charge had specified 12.30am as the time of the alleged commission of the offence.

Prosecution's 14 Witnesses

[6] The prosecution called 14 witnesses. At the close of the prosecution case the trial judge held that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case on both the charges. He then called upon the appellant to enter his defence.

Defence's 7 Witnesses

[7] The appellant elected to give evidence on oath, as DW1. He also called 6 other witnesses, DW2 to DW7.

Sentences Imposed By The Learned Trial Judge

[8] At the close of the defence case the trial judge found the appellant guilty on both counts.

[9] She convicted the appellant. She sentenced him, in respect of the 1st charge, to 6 months imprisonment and a fine of RM10000.00 in default 4 months imprisonment and in respect of the 2nd amended charge, to 8 months imprisonment and a fine of RM10000.00 in default 4 months imprisonment.

[10] He also ordered both the imprisonment sentences to take effect concurrently from the date of pronouncement of judgment.

[11] Being dissatisfied with the convictions and sentences he appealed to this Court.

Appellant's Grounds Of Appeal

[12] The appellant put forth 27 grounds of appeal in his petition of appeal. They can be summarised broadly as follows:

(1) The error on the part of the learned trial judge in accepting the evidence of the complainant, PW1, and the complainant's son, PW2;

(2) The error on the part of the learned trial judge in not expunging from the notes of proceedings the inadmissible and prejudicial evidence of the appellant's wife, PW12;

(3) The error on the part of the learned trial judge in admitting as evidence the 5 tape recordings and the 5 transcriptions; and

(4) Having erroneously called for the defence, the failure of the learned trial judge to properly and adequately consider he appellant's defence.

Appellant's Submissions In The Appeal

[13] The main thrust of the appeal was that both the convictions were against the weight of evidence as adduced by the prosecution. The reasons as submitted by his learned counsel in his written and oral submissions were firstly, PW1, the complainant, namely, Subramaniam s/o Mogan, had admitted repeatedly, when c