MOHD ROSLAN BIN ZAKARIA v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates appellate deference to a trial court's credibility findings and the burden on a defence seeking to rebut the presumption under section 23(2) of the MACC Act 2009 once the ingredients of the offence are established.

This is one of three consolidated High Court appeals at Kuala Terengganu against the appellant's conviction, by the Sessions Court, on charges under section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 of using public office for gratification. The factual core, common to the appeals, was that the appellant, a public officer, steered a government procurement exercise toward a company owned by a close relative by preparing the paperwork and tendering three quotations of which the lowest consistently favoured the related firm. This appeal turns substantially on evidence and on the reach of the statutory presumption. The court considered the credibility of witnesses, including discrepancies between testimony given in court and earlier statements to investigators handled under section 145(1) of the Evidence Act 1950, and reaffirmed that a trial judge enjoys the discretion to accept part and reject part of a witness's evidence. It emphasised the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with findings of fact grounded in the trial court's assessment of credibility. On the law, it held that the presumption under section 23(2) had been properly engaged once the ingredients were established and that the defence had failed to displace it on the balance of probabilities, the account being unreasonable, unsupported by objective evidence and contradicted by proven facts. The court found no error in the Sessions Court's approach to conviction or to sentence, imprisonment of two to three years with fines running to RM90,000 on the heaviest charge, ordered to run concurrently, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence in full while allowing a conditional stay of imprisonment pending any further appeal. The court added that the presumption, once activated, cast a real evidential burden on the defence, which mere assertion unsupported by objective evidence and contradicted by proven facts could not discharge. The judgment illustrates appellate deference to trial-level credibility findings and the burden on a defence seeking to rebut the section 23(2) presumption.