Ismail Khan J:

[1] In this case the appellant was charged as follow:

"That you on 8 November 1958 at about 12.50 pm at No 31 Sultan Street, Kuala Lumpur, in the State of Selangor being a public servant, to wit, a Municipal Officer inspecting Deaths, did accept for yourself a valuable thing, to wit, $5 cash without consideration from Wong Yong, a person whom you knew to be concerned in business transaction by yourself, to wit, the business of issuing a death certificate in respect of the late Chew Kew Chai, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 165 of the Penal Code."

[2] The appellant was convicted of the offence charged and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 in default three months 'imprisonment. Against the conviction he has appealed. In his grounds of judgment the learned President says that the following "facts were proved and not denied".

"(a) On 6 November 1958 a Chinese woman rubber tapper (PW2) of Sungei Choh brought her 29 days old sick baby to the General Hospital, Kuala Lumpur but the baby died before reaching the hospital.

(b) She took the dead body to the death house at No 31 Sultan Street, Kuala Lumpur on that day,.

(c) She then made arrangements with an employee of the undertaker, Wong Yong (PW3) to have this child buried for $45. She then returned to Sungei Choh.

(d) On 7 November 1958 'defendant, a public vaccinator and Inspector of dead bodies came to No 31 Sultan Street in the course of his normal duties. He refused to examine the dead body of the child as the parents were not present and the birth certificate of the child was not produced. He refused to give the burial certificate.

(e) In the afternoon of 7 November 1958 Wong Yong reported to the police (PW1). As a result of his report the police lay a trap for the defendant. A $5 note (P2) was marked on the morning of 8 November 1958.

(f) Defendant came to the death house on 8 November 1958. There he met the dead child's mother who still could not produce the birth certificate of the child as it was in the possession of the estate manager.

(g) Nevertheless the defendant finally gave the burial certificate but without Filling in the child's name. (P4A). At a given signal the police closed on the defendant and escorted him to the police station. There in the presence of two Senior Police Officers (PW1 and PW5) defendant was asked to bring out everything in his possession. Amongst the articles brought out by the defendant was the marked $5 note (P2).

According to Wong Yong defendant at first asked for $20 on 7 November 1958 but finally accepted $5 on 8 November 1958. Defendant denied asking for money or receiving $5 from Wong Yong. He suggested that Wong Yong put the $5 note in his shirt pocket while he was sitting down and writing out P4A."

[3] With regard to the learned President's Statement of facts it is to be observed that in his evidence the appellant did not admit that "he refused to examine the body of the child as the parents were not present and the birth certificate was not produced." All he asked for was the parents of the child or its birth certificate or both.

[4] The learned President accepted PW 3 Wong Yong's evidence and rejected that of the defendant and convicted him. The main grounds of appeal may be set out under three heads:

"(1) That the learned President gave no reasons why he accepted Wong Yong's evidence and why he rejected the defendant's.

(2) That the President misdirected himself as to the burden of proof, particularly the burden of proof upon the defence.

(3) The Proceedings have been vitiated by the admission of inadmissible evidence."

[5] I shall deal with the first and second grounds of appeal together. It would have been Of great advantage to me if I could have had the reasons for the learned President's finding as without them it is difficult to say whether or not the reasons are adequate, nor would it be possible to assess the considerations, if any, given to the particular fact or facts proved or disproved.