JUDGMENT

Alaudin Mohd. Sheriff J:

On 30 May 1994 both appellants were convicted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 (the Act) at the Sessions Court Kangar. The first appellant, in Case No. 61-1-89 was convicted for an offence of accepting a gratification to wit RM100, an offence under s. 4(a) of the Act and punishable under s. 4 and was sentenced to four (4) months, imprisonment and a fine of RM1,000 in default 4 months imprisonment. In Case No. 61-2-89 he was convicted for an offence of corruptly soliciting a gratification to wit RM400, an offence under s. 3(a)(ii) of the Act and punishable under s. 3 of the same Act. He faced a similar sentence as the first offence. As for the second appellant, he was convicted for an offence under s. 4(a) of the Act, i.e. abetment of an offence of corruptly accepting a gratification and faced a similar sentence.

Both the appellants have now appealed against their conviction and sentence.

Before me, the conviction was attacked on the following grounds:

(a) The learned Sessions Judge misdirected herself on facts and law when after having held that PW2 and PW3 were accomplices she applied the wrong test for corroborative evidence. She considered evidence which were not corroborative as corroborative evidence.

(b) The learned Sessions Judge misdirected herself on facts and law when she failed to take into consideration that there were material contradictions in the evidence of both PW2 and PW3 and that their evidence were unreliable.

(c) Having called for the defence the learned Sessions Judge did not adequately consider the defence of alibi and drew inferences which were against the weight of evidence.

(d) Further, the learned Sessions Judge did not adequately consider the burden of proof in respect of the defence in that it only requires a reasonable doubt to be raised. The learned Sessions Judge did not direct her mind to this burden and had completely omitted to do so.

Looking at the grounds of appeal and having heard submissions from both sides, I am of the view that there really are only two important issues which have to be considered in this appeals namely:

(i) Whether the learned Session Judge had adequately and properly considered the question of corroboration of accomplices' evidence.

(ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge had adequately considered the defence of alibi and applied the correct test in respect of the burden of proof for the defence.

I shall first consider the issue of corroboration of accomplice's evidence. However I do not propose to discuss the facts of the case in detail. Suffice for me to mention them as and when they are relevant.

From the notes of evidence and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge it is abundantly clear to me that the whole of the case for the prosecution was based on the evidence of PW2 and PW3. From her grounds of judgment, it becomes even clearer to me that the learned Sessions Judge had made a finding of fact that both PW2 and PW3 were accomplices.

At p. 163 of the appeal record her judgment reads:

Mahkamah mengambil iktibar bahawa SP3 (tuan punya lembu) adalah seorang rakan jenayah 'accomplice' dengan Mahmud dalam hal memberi dan menerima rasuah berhubungan kes ini. Mahkamah amat berhati hati dalam meneliti ketarangannya takut kalau-kalau keterangannya menyebabkan penganiavaan ke atas tertuduh-tertuduh dalam kes ini.

Again in her judgment at p. 171 of the appeal record, she says:

Seperti yang telah dihuraikan tadi Mahkamah bergantung di atas keternangan SP2, SP3, keterangan bebas dan keadaan sekeliling kes. SP3 adalah rakan jenayah kepada Mahmud dan SP2 adalah rakan jenayah SP3 kerana mereka sama-sama terlibat mengurus lembu seludup kepunyaan SP3.

It is trite law that the evidence of an accomplice needs corroboration and such corroborative evidence must come from independent sources. There is no dearth of authorities on this point.

Having found that both PW2 and PW3 were accomplices it is encumbent upon the learned