MOHD ZULKIFFLI BIN ABD HALIM v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates the operation of section 165 of the Penal Code, penalising a public servant who accepts a valuable thing without consideration from a person connected with his functions, as an alternative to a corruption charge, and the appellate approach to a trial court's evaluation of the evidence.

This High Court decision concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence on four charges under section 165 of the Penal Code, the provision penalising a public servant who accepts a valuable thing without consideration from a person connected with his official functions. The appellant, a road-transport enforcement officer whose duties included inspecting lorries suspected of offences under the Road Transport Act 1987, had originally faced four principal charges under section 16(a)(B) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, with four alternative charges under section 165 of the Penal Code. At the close of the prosecution case the Sessions Court found a prima facie case on the four alternative charges, and after the defence it convicted the appellant on those charges, sentencing him to terms of imprisonment of six and nine months, to run concurrently, together with fines. On appeal the appellant argued that there had been a miscarriage of justice in convicting him on the alternative charges, that the trial judge had wrongly accepted the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, that she had erred in finding that he had received money, and that she had wrongly applied the presumption under section 50 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act. The court examined the documentary and oral evidence, including bank records showing transfers into the appellant's personal account bearing the notations "mayang" and "mak mayang" from another witness's account, and the evidence of his official duties. It held that the trial judge had properly evaluated the evidence, that the conviction on the alternative charges was safe and correct in law, and that the sentence was lawful, proportionate and had taken account of all proper considerations. Finding no merit in the appeal against either conviction or sentence, the court dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The judgment is a useful illustration of the operation of section 165 of the Penal Code as an alternative to a corruption charge and of the appellate approach to a trial court's findings of fact.