CASE OF THE WEEK

The respondent, while being a member of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly, had received a cash cheque of RM1 million from the former executive chairman (`SP1') of one Syarikat Nusantara Sdn Bhd (`Nusantara') as gratification for helping Nusantara obtain a piece of land from the State Government of Selangor, and flowing from that, was charged with and convicted of an offence (as amended) under s. 3(a)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 (`PCA'). It was the view of the trial court, upon the evidence adduced, that the respondent had inter alia contravened s. 8 of the PCA, and on that score, was guilty of the offence as per the charge. The respondent's conviction was however quashed on appeal, whereof the High Court, while faulting the trial court for a series of non-directions and misdirections, opined that there was no credible and cogent evidence to show that the acceptance of the cheque by the respondent was against the law as to render it a corrupt receipt. It was the High Court's view that there was nothing wrong for the respondent to have received the RM1 million for the services rendered to Nusantara, considering that it was a lawful business deal between the respondent and SP1, whom the High Court considered as "an accomplice of the first degree", and since the respondent was just an ordinary member of the State Legislative Assembly, and not of the Executive Council (`EXCO') who had the authority to approve Nusantara's application for the land. According to the High Court further, the trial court had also committed a serious breach of natural justice when it invoked s. 8 of the PCA, and invoking it without any prior notice to the defence. Dissatisfied with the order of acquittal thus made by the High Court, the Public Prosecutor had since appealed, inter alia citing, as grounds thereof: (i) the inconsequential nature of the invocation of s. 8 of the PCA by the trial court; and (ii) the failure by the High Court to consider the protective import of s. 18 PCA when discrediting SP1 or his (accomplice) evidence.

Held (dismissing appeal; affirming the acquittal)

Per Abdul Malik Ishak JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) To prove "corruptly" in s. 3(a)(i) of the PCA, the prosecution must show that the purpose of the gratification was unlawful. In this case, since the amended charge in s. 3(a)(i) of the PCA did not involve "any member, officer, or servant of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public body is concerned", as exemplified in s. 3(a)(ii) of the PCA, it made it all the more difficult for the prosecution to factually prove the element of "corruptly". (para 73)

(2) In this case, while the charge states that the cheque was a gratification (bribe money) to the respondent, the prosecution had produced witnesses like SP1, SP6, SP8 and SP10 who suggested that the RM1 million was a donation to UMNO, or UMNO's building fund. None of them said that the RM1 million was paid to the respondent as a gratification to him. The versions they gave thus suggested that the giver of the RM1 million, SP1, had never bribed the respondent, and further that the respondent was just a mere courier to receive the monies for Selayang UMNO. But if that be so, there was no prima facie case for the respondent to answer, and the respondent should have been acquitted and discharged by the trial court without his defence being called. (paras 88 & 90-92)

(3) This court is of the view that SP1 has cheated the Nusantara Board into thinking that the RM1 million was either for the respondent or as SP10's compensation or even as a pure innocent business commission for the respondent. Be that as it may, upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, nagging questions still arose as to whether the RM1 million was meant for the respondent, or for the Menteri Besar of Selangor then, or as a political donation the building fund of UMNO Selayang, or an innocent commission payment to the respondent in a normal brokerage transaction, or as part of the payment to satisfy SP10's demand of RM2 million compensation, or for compensation to two sacked directors of Nusantara, or for a combination of all these. It ought to be borne in mind, in this respect, that evidence had inter alia been adduced that SP10 had demanded for an RM2-million compensation over his dispute with SP1 for which SP1 had agreed to pay RM1.2 million, and had further authorized the respondent to receive the said compensation from SP1 on his behalf. (paras 97-98 & 100-101)

(4) Section 8 of the PCA (bribery of a member of the Legislature) stands independently and creates an entirely different offence from that of s. 3(a)(i). Here, the respondent was not charged under s. 8 of the PCA and the trial court was therefore wrong in invoking the section against him. The invocation of the section by the trial court thus constituted a grave error in law which warranted appellate intervention. The facts also showed that the trial court had invoked the said s. 8 in its written judgment two years after the respondent was convicted without giving any prior notice to the respondent. Surely, natural justice dictates that the respondent ought to be entitled to adequate notification before s. 8 could be so invoked by the trial court. (paras 133, 144 & 153)

(5) The trial court has failed to direct itself on the crucial issue of whether it was safe to convict the respondent solely on the evidence of SP1 and without independent evidence of relevant circumstances connecting the respondent to the alleged offence. Such failure amounts to a non-direction. It must be borne in mind that the prosecution herein had elected not to prefer a separate charge against the respondent for corruptly soliciting RM1 million and had elected instead to prefer a single charge for corruptly receiving RM1 million. But in doing so, the prosecution sought to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of SP1 in order to drive home the point that the respondent had corruptly solicited RM1 million in order to render the receipt by the respondent of the RM1 million cheque a corrupt receipt under s. 3(a)(i) of the PCA. (para 156)

(6) Section 18 of the PCA modifies the law and practice in regard to a specified class of accomplices only and it is not of a general application. Where a person is an accomplice by reason of making a corrupt payment he is not presumed unworthy of credit. But where that person has played a more active part or an infamous part in the transaction apart from the bare payment, then such person cannot be protected under s. 18 of the PCA, and the ordinary rules as regards the evidence of accomplices will apply. This is the position of the law, and seen in this light, SP1 cannot come under the protection of s. 18 of the PCA and the ordinary rules of accomplice evidence would apply to him. Accordingly, SP1's evidence must be corroborated. (para 160)

(7) The fact that SP1 did not lodge a police report to complain that he was forced by the respondent to give the cheque but nonetheless had intimidated the respondent through SP24 to refrain from contesting against him for the post of Selayang UMNO Division Head is a very significant factor to consider. The absence of a prior police report by SP1 had greatly affected his credibility as a witness and his veracity when he testified against the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, had lodged a police report against SP1 for blackmailing him through SP24. The High Court had considered this very pertinent point but the trial court did not pay serious attention to it. It is clear that had the trial court considered the point, it would have found that a reasonable doubt had been raised in the prosecution's case, namely that, the receipt of the cheque by the respondent was done in the course of a lawful and legal business deal between SP1 and the respondent, and not corruptly. (paras 165-167)

(8) The gratification which the respondent was alleged to have received corruptly was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent was not a member of the EXCO and therefore not a decision maker. Being a mere State Assemblyman, there is nothing reprehensible for the respondent to make a commission legally and legitimately for assisting Nusantara in its application for the land. The respondent was not placed in the position of conflict of interest, and nor has he breached his oath of office. (paras 188 & 190)

(9) The entire story about donation to UMNO is not true. The respondent asked for a commission and he received a commission. It was however not received corruptly. If the respondent took the money meant for UMNO, he is guilty of criminal breach of trust under s. 405 of the Penal Code. The respondent, however, was not charged for criminal breach of trust. (para 191)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Responden, sewaktu menjadi seorang Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Selangor, telah menerima sekeping cek tunai RM1 juta dari bekas pengerusi eksekutif (`SP1') Syarikat Nusantara Sdn Bhd (`Nusantara') sebagai suapan kerana membantu Nusantara memperolehi sebidang tanah dari Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, dan ekoran dari itu, telah didakwa dan disabitkan dengan satu kesalahan (terpinda) di bawah s. 3(a)(i) Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1961 (`APR'). Adalah menjadi pandangan mahkamah bicara, berdasarkan keterangan yang dikemukakan, bahawa responden telah antara lain melanggari s. 8 APR dan oleh itu bersalah melakukan kesalahan seperti pertuduhan. Sabitan responden bagaimanapun diakas atas rayuan, di mana Mahkamah Tinggi, selain mempersalahkan mahkamah bicara kerana beberapa ketinggalan dan salah arahan, menyatakan bahawa tidak terdapat keterangan yang kukuh dan meyakinkan yang menunjukkan bahawa penerimaan cek oleh responden adalah menyalahi undang-undang bagi menjadikan penerimaannya bersifat rasuah. Menurut Mahkamah Tinggi tiada apa salahnya bagi responden menerima ganjaran RM1 juta tersebut bagi perkhidmatan yang diberikan beliau kepada Nusantara, memandangkan ia berpunca dari transaksi niaga yang sah di antara responden dan SP1, yang dianggap oleh Mahkamah Tinggi sebagai "seorang rakan sejenayah tahap pertama", dan oleh kerana responden merupakan hanya seorang ahli biasa Dewan Undangan Negeri, dan bukannya ahli Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan (`MMK') yang mempunyai autoriti untuk meluluskan permohonan tanah Nusantara. Menurut Mahkamah Tinggi lagi, mahkamah bicara juga telah dengan seriusnya melanggar prinsip keadilan semulajadi apabila membangkitkan s. 8 APR, dan membangkitkannya tanpa memberi apa-apa notis kepada pihak pembelaan. Tidak berpuashati dengan perintah pembebasan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, Pendakwa Raya telah merayu, dan antara lain membangkitkan, sebagai alasan rayuan: (i) pengenaan s. 8 APR oleh mahkamah bicara yang tidak memudaratkan; dan (ii) kegagalan Mahkamah Tinggi untuk menimbang kesan perlindungan s. 18 APR apabila tidak mempercayai SP1 atau keterangan beliau (sebagai rakan sejenayah).

Diputuskan (menolak rayuan; mengesahkan pembebasan)

Oleh Abdul Malik Ishak HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Untuk membuktikan "secara rasuah" di dalam s. 3(a)(i) APR, pihak pendakwaan hendaklah menunjukkan bahawa tujuan suapan adalah salah di sisi undang-undang. Dalam kes ini, oleh kerana pertuduhan di bawah s. 3(a)(i) APR seperti yang dipinda tidak melibatkan "any member, officer, or servant of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed or likely to take place, in which the public body is concerned", seperti yang terserlah dalam s. 3(a)(ii) APR, maka ianya menjadi lebih sukar untuk pendakwaan membuktikan elemen "secara rasuah".

(2) Dalam kes ini, sementara pertuduhan menyatakan cek merupakan satu suapan (wang rasuah) kepada responden, pendakwaan telah mengemukakan saksi-saksi seperti SP1, SP6, SP8 dan SP10 yang menyatakan bahawa wang RM1 juta tersebut adalah sebagai derma kepada UMNO, atau untuk dana bangunan UMNO. Tiada seorang pun dari mereka menyatakan bahawa wang tersebut dibayar kepada responden sebagai suapan kepadanya. Versi yang mereka berikan jelas menunjukkan bahawa pemberi wang RM1 juta tersebut, SP1, tidak pernah merasuah responden, dan selanjutnya bahawa responden hanyalah seorang perantara untuk menerima wang tersebut untuk UMNO Selayang. Tetapi jika itulah keadaannya, maka tidak wujud kes prima facie untuk dijawab oleh responden dan responden patut dibebas dan dilepaskan oleh mahkamah bicara tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri.

(3) Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa SP1 telah menipu Lembaga Pengarah Nusantara untuk berfikir bahawa wang RM1 juta tersebut adalah sama ada untuk responden atau sebagai gantirugi kepada SP10 atau malah sebagai komisyen kepada responden yang berbangkit dari satu urusan niaga biasa. Walaupun begitu, berdasarkan keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pendakwaan, leretan persoalan masih berbangkit mengenai sama ada wang RM1 juta itu adalah untuk responden, ataupun untuk Menteri Besar Selangor waktu itu, ataupun sebagai derma politik untuk bangunan UMNO Selayang, ataupun sebagai komisyen kepada responden yang berbangkit dari satu urusan niaga biasa, ataupun sebagai bayaran pendahuluan kepada SP10 bagi menyelesaikan jumlah pampasan RM2 juta yang dituntut SP10, ataupun sebagai pampasan untuk dua pengarah Nusantara yang telah disingkirkan, ataupun untuk mana-mana campuran tujuan-tujuan ini. Harus diingat, berkaitan persoalan ini, bahawa keterangan antara lain telah dikemukakan bahawa SP10 telah menuntut pampasan sebanyak RM2 juta bagi menyelesaikan persengketaannya dengan SP1 di mana SP1 bersetuju untuk membayar RM1.2 juta, dan bahawa SP10 juga bersetuju supaya responden menerima wang pampasan tersebut bagi pihaknya.

(4) Seksyen 8 APR (merasuah ahli Dewan Undangan) berdiri secara tersendiri dan mencipta kesalahan yang berbeza dari kesalahan di bawah s. 3(a)(i). Di sini, responden tidak dituduh di bawah s. 8 APR dan mahkamah bicara dengan itu khilaf apabila mengenakan seksyen tersebut kepada responden. Pengenaan seksyen tersebut kepada responden dengan itu merupakan satu kekhilafan undang-undang yang serius yang sekaligus mewajarkan campur tangan mahkamah peringkat rayuan. Fakta juga menunjukkan bahawa mahkamah bicara telah mengenakan s. 8 tersebut dalam penghakimannya dua tahun selepas responden disabit tanpa memberi sebarang notis terdahulu kepada responden. Prinsip keadilan semulajadi pastinya menuntut bahawa responden berhak diberikan notis mencukupi sebelum s. 8 boleh dibangkitkan oleh mahkamah bicara.

(5) Mahkamah bicara telah gagal mengarahkan dirinya berkaitan isu penting sama ada ianya selamat untuk mensabitkan responden semata-mata atas keterangan SP1 dan tanpa keterangan bebas mengenai keadaan-keadaan yang mengaitkan responden kepada kesalahan yang didakwa. Harus diingat bahawa pihak pendakwaan di sini memilih untuk tidak mendakwa responden secara berasingan atas kesalahan meminta rasuah RM1 juta tetapi sebaliknya memilih untuk mengemukakan pertuduhan tunggal menerima rasuah RM1 juta. Apapun, dalam berbuat demikian, pendakwaan cuba bergantung kepada keterangan tanpa sokongan SP1 bagi membuktikan bahawa responden telah meminta RM1 juta secara rasuah bagi menjadikan penerimaan cek RM1 juta oleh responden itu satu penerimaan rasuah di bawah s. 3(a)(i) APR.

(6) Seksyen 18 APR hanya mengubah undang-undang dan amalan berkaitan golongan rakan sejenayah tertentu sahaja dan ia bukanlah peruntukan yang dilaksana secara menyeluruh. Seseorang yang menjadi rakan sejenayah kerana telah menyerahkan wang rasuah, tidak semestinya keterangannya menjadi tidak boleh dipercayai. Namun begitu, di mana orang tersebut memainkan peranan yang lebih aktif atau dengan penuh kebersalahan dalam sesuatu transaksi dan bukan hanya semata-mata membuat pembayaran, maka orang itu tidak boleh dilindungi di bawah s. 18 APR, dan kaedah-kaedah biasa berkaitan dengan keterangan rakan sejenayah akan terpakai. Inilah kedudukannya di sisi undang-undang, dan dilihat dari perspektif ini, SP1 tidak dilindungi oleh s. 18 dan kaedah-kaedah biasa keterangan rakan sejenayah terpakai kepadanya. Ianya mengikut bahawa keterangan SP1 memerlukan sokongan.

(7) Fakta bahawa SP1 tidak membuat laporan polis bahawa beliau telah dipaksa oleh responden untuk memberikan cek tetapi dalam pada itu telah mengugut responden melalui SP24 supaya tidak bertanding dengannya untuk jawatan Ketua UMNO Bahagian Selayang adalah satu faktor yang penting untuk dipertimbang. Ketiadaan laporan polis oleh SP1 telah menjejaskan kredibilitinya selaku seorang saksi serta ketelusan beliau apabila memberi keterangan terhadap responden. Responden sebaliknya telah membuat laporan polis terhadap SP1 kerana mengugutnya melalui SP24. Mahkamah Tinggi telah menimbang persoalan yang penting ini, tetapi mahkamah bicara telah tidak memberikan perhatian serius kepadanya. Adalah jelas bahawa, jika mahkamah bicara mempertimbangkan persoalan ini, ia akan mencapai keputusan bahawa suatu keraguan munasabah telah dibangkitkan terhadap kes pendakwaan, iaitu bahawa penerimaan cek oleh responden dibuat dalam perjalanan satu urusan niaga yang sah dan mengikut undang-undang di antara SP1 dan responden, dan tidak secara rasuah.

(8) Suapan yang dikatakan telah diterima oleh responden secara rasuah telah tidak dibuktikan di luar keraguan munasabah. Responden bukan seorang ahli MMK dan kerana itu bukan seorang pembuat keputusan. Sebagai seorang Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri biasa, tiada apa salahnya bagi responden mengambil komisyen secara sah dan tidak melanggar undang-undang kerana membantu Nusantara dalam permohonan tanahnya. Responden juga tidak berada dalam keadaan mempunyai kepentingan yang bertentangan dan tidak melanggar sumpah jawatannya.

(9) Keseluruhan cerita mengenai derma kepada UMNO adalah tidak benar. Responden telah meminta komisyen dan beliau telah menerima komisyennya. Apapun ia tidak diterima secara rasuah. Jika responden mengambil wang yang ditujukan untuk UMNO, maka beliau melakukan kesalahan pecah amanah jenayah di bawah s. 405 Kanun Keseksaan. Responden bagaimanapun tidak dituduh dengan kesalahan tersebut.

Case(s) referred to:

Ah Mee v. PP [1967] 1 LNS 3 FC (refd)

Ahmad Shah Hashim v. PP [1980] 1 MLJ 77 (refd)

Ahmad Zaini Japar v. TL Offshore Sdn Bhd [2002] 5 CLJ 201 HC (refd)

Anwar Hussain and Another v. The State AIR [1952] Assam 47 (refd)

Blackburn 327 [1856] 119 ER 886 (refd)

Bradford Election Petition 19 LT 723 (refd)

Choong Oi Choo v. PP & Another Case [1986] 2 CLJ 231; [1986] CLJ (Rep) 325 HC (refd)

Cooper v. The Board of Works for the Wandsworth District [1863] 14 CB (NS) 180 (refd)

David Wong Hon Leong v. Noorazman Adnan [1995] 4 CLJ 155 CA (refd)

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kilbourne [1973] 1 All ER 440 (refd)

Habibulla Khan v. State of Orissa and Another [1993] Cri LJ 3604 (refd)

Harihar Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal AIR [1954] SC 266 (refd)

Hj Abdul Ghani Ishak & Anor v. PP [1981] 1 LNS 96 FC (refd)

Lejzor Teper v. The Queen [1952] AC 480 (refd)

Leong Hong Khie v. PP, Tan Gong Wai v. PP [1986] 2 MLJ 206 FC (refd)

Lim Ah Oh & Anor v. Rex [1950] 1 LNS 36 HC (refd)

Lim Beh & Ors v. Opium Farmer [1842] 3 Ky 10 (refd)

Lim Kheng Kooi & Anor v. Regina [1957] 1 LNS 36 HC (refd)

Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v. Lannon And Others, Regina v. London Rent Assessment Panel Committee, Ex parte Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd [1968] 3 WLR 694 (refd)

Ng Kok Lian & Anor v. PP [1983] 2 CLJ 247; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 293 FC (refd)

Oh Keng Seng v. PP [1974] 1 LNS 106 HC (refd)

Padmakar Balkrishna Samant v. Abdul Rehman Antulay And Another [1984] 2 SCC 184 (refd)

PP v. Datuk Haji Harun Haji Idris (No 2) [1976] 1 LNS 97 HC (refd)

PP v. Dato Haji Mohamed Muslim Haji Othman [1982] 1 LNS 71 HC (refd)

PP v. Datuk Hj Dzulkifli [1982] CLJ 29; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 644 HC (refd)

PP v. Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 1 LNS 58 FC (refd)

PP v. Heng You Nang [1949] 1 LNS 61 HC (refd)

PP v. James Tan [1983] 1 LNS 24 HC (refd)

PP v. Mohamed Ali Mohamed Amin & Anor [1979] 1 LNS 76 HC (refd)

PP v. Tan Kim Kang & Ors [1962] 1 LNS 137 HC (refd)

PP v. You Kong Lai [1984] 1 CLJ 379; [1984] 2 CLJ (Rep) 429 HC (refd)

R v. Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 (refd)

Ram Prasad and Others v. State, Through Jai Narain and Another AIR [1952] Allahabad 878 (refd)

Ramkrishna Sawalaram Redkar v. State of Maharashtra [1980] Cri LJ 254 (refd)

Rattan Singh v. PP [1971] 1 MLJ 162 HC (refd)

Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Doody, Same v. Same, Ex parte Pegg, Same v. Same, Ex parte Pierson, Same v. Same, Ex parte Smart [1994] 1 AC 531 (refd)

Rex v. Lim Yam Hong 14 SSLR 152 (refd)

Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR [1957] SC 637 (refd)

Singah Mohamed Hussin v. PP [1973] 1 LNS 139 HC (refd)

Subramaniam v. PP [1956] 1 LNS 115 PC (refd)

Tay Choon Nam & Two Others v. Rex [1948] 1 LNS 71 HC (refd)

The King v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 (refd)

The Royal British Bank v. Turquand [1856] 6 Ellis (refd)

Walter Annamunthodo v. Oilfields Workers' Trade Union [1961] AC 945 (refd)

Yoong Hock Pin v. PP [1977] 1 LNS 161 FC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Constitution of the State of Selangor, art. 53(8)

Contracts Act 1950, ss. 2(d), (e)

Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 158(1), 169

Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance, s. 2(1)

Evidence Act 1950, s. 60

Federal Constitution, art. 2(8)

Penal Code, s. 405

Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, ss. 2(d), 3(a)(i), (ii), 4(a), 8, 18

Prevention of Corruption Ordinance 1950, s. 13(3)

Other source(s) referred to:

AS Hornby, Oxford Fajar Advanced Learner's English-Malay Dictionary,
p 805

Mimi Kamariah Majid, Criminal Procedure In Malaysia, 3rd edn, p 369

New Oxford English-Malay Dictionary, p 351

RO Winstedt, Malay-English Dictionary, pp 339, 384

Yusoff Khan, Kamus Lengkap, Penyunting Drs Awang Sudjai Hairul, MA (Linguistics), pp 1061, 1217

For the appellant - Abdul Razak Musa (Nurul Eylia Yunus with him); DPPs

For the respondent - Dr Muhammad Shafee Muhammad Abdullah (Badrul Munir & Sarah Maalini Abishegam with him); M/s Shafee & Co

[Appeal from High Court, Shah Alam; Criminal Appeal No: 42-17-2002]

Reported by Wan Sharif Ahmad