Mohd Shahir Bin Ahmad Dewi - Dalam Jaminan v Pendakwa Raya
13 cases cited
(0 SG, 13 foreign)
Outcome
The conviction on the First Charge and the conviction on the Second Charge are set aside.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Soliciting gratification – Offence under s. 16(a)(B) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Elements of offence – Whether gratification corruptly solicited as inducement for officer of public body to forbear from performing official duty – Meaning of "inducement" – Whether purpose of solicitation may be inferred from surrounding circumstances – Whether claim that money was for bail and not a bribe a valid defence – Whether officer of PDRM an officer of a public body – Proof of status by certificate under s. 55 MACC Act 2009 – Whether certificate admissible as prima facie proof of position held and emoluments received CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Obtaining gratification – Offence under s. 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Elements of offence – Agent corruptly obtaining gratification as inducement for forbearing to do act in relation to principal's affairs – Whether enforcement of drug laws falls within affairs of PDRM as principal – Meaning of "principal" under s. 3 MACC Act 2009 – Whether forbearance from official duty established where detained persons were released without formal arrest, police report, or investigation CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Statutory presumption – s. 50(1) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Whether presumption arises upon proof that gratification was received or solicited – Distinction between duty to raise reasonable doubt and heavier duty to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities – Whether bare denials, conjectures and afterthought evidence sufficient to rebut presumption – Whether rebuttal requires affirmative admissible evidence CRIMINAL LAW: Corruption – Attempt to obtain gratification – Offence under s. 17(a) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Elements of attempt – Distinction between preparation and attempt – Whether conduct had progressed beyond preparation into attempt – Whether interruption by extraneous cause, namely MACC trap operation, prevents conviction for attempt CRIMINAL LAW: Common intention – s. 34 Penal Code – Whether s. 34 creates substantive offence or is a rule of evidence – Participation as essential element – Meaning of participation – Whether mere presence at scene of offence sufficient to establish participation – Whether presence must carry quality of facilitating or promoting the offence – Whether court may draw collective finding of common intention against all accused without identifying individual participatory acts – Whether prosecution must establish evidential minimum of participation individually against each accused CRIMINAL LAW: Common intention – Acquittal of co-accused – Whether absence of any act, demand, threat or handling of gratification by one accused negates participation under s. 34 Penal Code – Whether concessions by prosecution's own witnesses and principal complainant that accused performed no act of participation fatal to charge – Whether doubt arising from prosecution's own case, independently of accused's defence, sufficient to warrant acquittal CRIMINAL LAW: Evidence – Admissibility of recorded telephone conversation – s. 43(3) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Whether written authorisation required for recording made with consent and cooperation of one participant – Whether recording falls within prohibition against interception where only one party to conversation was unaware of recording – Admissibility of document not tendered by prosecution – s. 51A Criminal Procedure Code – Whether s. 51A empowers court to compel prosecution to adduce document disclosed pre-trial but not tendered at trial – Failure to cross-examine on crucial matters – Whether unchallenged evidence must be accepted CRIMINAL LAW: Evidence – Credibility of single witness – Whether w
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Hazza Khalid, Suraya & Partners Firm Luqman Iswatt & Partners Firm Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Johor Firm Raziyan Rahim & Associates Firm Chan Lee Lee Counsel Prosecution Luqman Bin Mazlan Counsel Appellant Mohd Hamizi Bin Mohd Yusof Counsel Appellant Mohd Hazza bin Mohd Khalid Counsel Appellant
Statutes Cited
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
MACC Act 2009
s 17(a) s 24(1) s 3 s 43(3) s 50(1)
Penal Code (Cap 574)
Cases Cited (13)
UK (1)
[1944] AC 156
MY (12)
[1963] MLJ 263 [1977] 1 MLJ 15 [1977] 1 MLJ 79 [2004] 1 CLJ 57 [2004] 2 CLJ 572 [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2006] 1 CLJ 457 [2008] 4 MLJ 556 [2009] 1 CLJ 154 [2009] 3 MLJ 643 [2015] 8 CLJ 796 [2016] 9 CLJ 769
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-42ra-2-02-2025)