Azmi LP: (read by Suffian FJ):

The appellant was convicted by the sessions Court on the following charge:

That you on 7 March 1968, at about 2.30 p.m. at the back lane of Pesiaran Raja Laut, in the District of Kuala Lumpur, in the State of Selangor, being an agent of the Government of the Federation of Malaysia to wit a police constable No. 30015 of the Royal Federation of Malaysia Police Force, did corruptly accept Fifty dollars ($50) cash from one Chang Choon Kwong as a reward for showing favour to the said Chang Choon Kwong in relation to your Principal's Affairs, to wit to have assisted in the release of the said Chang Choon Kwong who was arrested and detained for being suspected of having committed an offence of theft on 18 February 1968 and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 42 of 1961.

and was sentenced to a fine of $2,500 and in default to two year's imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court and his appeal was dismissed. On his application the High Court reserved the following questions of law under s. 66 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 for the decision of the Federal Court:

(1) Whether the Court should treat the cautioned statement of the accused (appellant/applicant) which was put in by way of an exhibit by the prosecution before the close of the prosecutions's case, as forming part of the prosecution's case as opposed to part of the defence case, when the Court was considering whether the accused should be called upon to enter into defence.

(2)If the cautioned statement should be treated as forming part of the prosecution's case, in view of the contradictions between the contents of the cautioned statement and other evidence of the prosecution, whether at the close of the prosecution case the Court should find that there was no case for the accused to answer.

It would appear that one Chang Choon Kwong hereinafter referred to a PW4 was arrested on suspicion of picking pockets by policeman PC Tambi PW1 on 18 February 1968. On his arrest PW4 was interrogated by Sgt Ranjit Singh through the interpretation of the appellant, and after a week's detention he was released on the instructions of assistant superintendent of police Pritam Singh.

According to PW4, on 24 February 1968, before he was actually released from custody the same day, the appellant came to see him and asked from him $100 so that he, the appellant, could obtain his release. PW4 protested that he was penniless, but promised to pay the appellant whenever he had enough money. They met again on several occasions but each time PW4 asked for time. On one of these occasions the appellant apparently agreed to accept $50 only.

After their last meeting on 3 March 1968, PW4 decided to report to the anti corruption agency. He saw several officers and on 7 March, assistant superintendent of police Ang Chooi Tuan handed to him five $10 notes which he was to give to the appellant should he make further demand. On 7 March they met and PW4 handed the five $10 notes to the appellant. The appellant was subsequently arrested and the notes were found in his trouser pocket.

After his arrest the appellant made a cautioned statement to assistant superintendent of police Abdul Ghani. He admitted that the $50 were found in his trouser pocket but denied that they were corruptly paid. In answer to questions put to him by the recording officer as to how the notes came into his trouser pocket he merely said he did not know. He also denied that he knew PW4, but remembered that on 19 February 1968 PW4 was arrested. He denied meeting him again until the date he himself was arrested. He also denied borrowing any money from PW4 or that PW4 ever borrowed money from him.

Evidence was given as to the planning of the trap and the arrest of the appellant. The cautioned statement by the appellant was also put in as part of the evidence for the prosecution. When called upon to make his defence, the appe