For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.”. [Penekanan ditambah] [16] Maksud kes prima facie di bawah seksyen 180 KTJ dan penilaian maksimum tersebut telahpun diputuskan secara mantap oleh mahkamah atasan di negara ini dalam kes undang-undang seperti PP v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209, Looi Kow Chai & Anor v. PP [2003] 1 CLJ 734, Balachandran v. PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301, PP v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 6 MLJ 393, Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 301, Magendran Mohan v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805 dan Abdullah Atan v. PP & Other Appeals [2020] 9 CLJ 151. [17] Dalam kes Balachandran v Public Prosecutor (supra) misalnya, Augustine Paul JCA (pada ketika itu) yang menyampaikan keputusan S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ Mahkamah Persekutuan telah mentafsirkan maksud kes prima facie dan tujuan penggubalan seksyen 180 KTJ seperti yang berikut: “[21] Section 180(1) makes it clear that the standard of proof on the prosecution at the close of its case is to make out a prima facie case while s 182A(1) enunciates that at the conclusion of the trial the court shall consider all the evidence adduced and decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof on the prosecution at the end of its case and at the end of the whole case has thus been statutorily spelt out in clear terms. The submission made must therefore be ratiocinated against the background of the meaning of the phrase ‘prima facie case’ in s 180. Section 180(2) provides that the court shall record an order of acquittal if a prima facie case has not been made out while s 180(3) provides that if a prima facie case has been made out the accused shall be called upon to enter his defence. A prima facie case is therefore one that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in turn means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal. The phrase ‘prima facie case’ is defined in similar terms in Mozley and Whiteley’s Law Dictionary 11th Ed as: A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side. [22] The result is that the force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. On the other hand if a prima facie case has not been made out it means that there is no material evidence which can be believed in the sense as described earlier. In S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ order to make a finding either way the court must, at the close of the case for the prosecution, undertake a positive evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence adduced so as to determine whether the elements of the offence have been established. As the trial is without a jury it is only with such a positive evaluation can the court make a determination for the purpose of s 180(2) and (3). Of course in a jury trial where the evaluation is hypothetical the question to be asked would be whether on the evidence as it stands the accused could (and not must) lawfully be convicted. That is so because a determination on facts is a matter for ultimate decision by the jury at the end of the trial. Since the court, in ruling that a prima facie case has been made out, must be satisfied that the evidence adduced can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal it follows that if it is not rebutted it must prevail. Thus if the accused elects to remain silent he must be convicted. The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case.”. [Penekanan ditambah] [18] Selanjutnya, dalam kes Magendran Mohan v. PP (supra), Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA telah mentafsirkan maksud kes prima facie seperti yang berikut: “[25] The test at the end of the prosecution’s case is “prima facie case” based on a maximum evaluation of evidence. The evidence has to be scrutinized properly and not perfunctorily, cursorily or superficially. If the S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ evaluation of the evidence results in doubts in the prosecution’s case, then a prima facie case has not been made out. The defence ought not to be called merely to clear or clarify such doubts.”. [Penekanan ditambah] [19] Berdasarkan nas-nas undang-undang di atas adalah jelas bahawa tugas Mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan ialah membuat penilaian maksimum terhadap setiap keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan berkenaan dengan intipati penting sesuatu pertuduhan dan menentukan sama ada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh, iaitu jika tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri dan tertuduh memilih untuk berdiam diri, adakah keterangan-keterangan prima facie tersebut cukup untuk membuktikan bahawa tertuduh telah melakukan kesalahan tersebut melampaui keraguan yang munasabah dan seterusnya cukup untuk mensabitkan tertuduh dengan pertuduhan tersebut. [20] Memandangkan HMS telah gagal menyatakan dalam Alasan Penghakimannya yang beliau telah membuat penilaian maksimum terhadap semua keterangan saksi-saksi di akhir kes pendakwaan sebelum memutuskan pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap OKT bagi ketiga-tiga Pertuduhan tersebut, maka berdasarkan nas-nas undang-undang di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ bahawa keputusan HMS di akhir kes pendakwaan tersebut adalah fatal, tersalah arah dan menyebabkan ketidakadilan (miscarriage of justice) kepada OKT kerana tidak diketahui sama ada HMS telah menggunakan beban pembuktian yang betul dan tepat semasa memanggil OKT membela diri (lihat kes Balachandran v Public Prosecutor (supra)). [21] Prinsip undang-undang mengenai perkara ini telahpun diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor (supra) yang mana dalam penghakiman yang disampaikan oleh Gopal Sri Ram FCJ telah dinyatakan seperti yang berikut: “[25] What was required of the learned trial judge at the close of the prosecution case was to undertake a maximum or positive evaluation of all the evidence tendered at that stage. In Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 6 MLJ 393, the test to be applied under s 180 at the close of the prosecution case was stated as follows: This requires the court to undertake a maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence when deciding whether to call on the accused to enter upon his or her defence. It involves an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses called by the prosecution and the drawing of inferences admitted by the prosecution evidence. Thus, if the prosecution evidence admits of two or more inferences, one of which is in the accused’s favour, then it is the duty of the court to draw the inference that is favourable to the accused. See Tai Chai Keh v Public Prosecutor [1948–49] MLJ Supp 105, Public Prosecutor v Kasmin bin Soeb [1974] 1 MLJ 230. If the court, upon a maximum evaluation of the evidence placed S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ before it at the close of the prosecution case, comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case has not been made out, it should acquit the accused. If, on the other hand, the court after conducting a maximum evaluation of the evidence comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out, it must call for the defence. If the accused then elects to remain silent, the court must proceed to convict him. [26] … [27] It is plain from what we have said when discussing the evidence that a reasonable tribunal properly directing itself on the applicable law and judicially appreciating the evidence would have acquitted the appellant at the close of the prosecution case. The failure of the learned judge to undertake a maximum or positive evaluation of the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW8 has in the present case resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. We are therefore unable to accept the invitation of the learned deputy public prosecutor to apply the proviso to s 92 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. In this context we would refer to three authorities which are in our judgment of assistance on the way in which the proviso should be applied. The first is Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493, where Fullagar J said: … every accused person is entitled to a trial in which the relevant law is correctly explained to the jury and the rules of procedures and evidence are strictly followed. If there is any failure in any of these respects, and the appellant may thereby have lost a chance which was fairly open to him of being acquitted, there is, in the eye of the law, a miscarriage of justice. Justice has miscarried in such cases, because the appellant has not had what the law says that he shall have, and justice is justice according to law.”. [Penekanan ditambah] S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ [22] Kedua, semasa pemeriksaan balas terhadap pegawai penyiasat kes ini, iaitu Azlina binti Khasim (SP14), peguam OKT yang terpelajar telah mencabar keterangan SP14 dengan mencadangkan wang yang diterima oleh OKT sebanyak RM1,000.00 bagi Pertuduhan Ketiga tersebut adalah wang untuk tajaan bola sepak Piala Ketua Polis Perlis yang diberikan oleh pengadu kepada OKT. Menurut peguam OKT yang terpelajar, OKT menerima wang tersebut daripada pengadu kerana ASP Bahari, iaitu Komander AKSEM Padang Besar, memberitahu OKT yang OKT boleh mendapatkan dana untuk tajaan bola sepak Piala Ketua Polis Perlis tersebut daripada mana-mana pihak sekiranya tidak cukup. [23] Peguam OKT yang terpelajar juga turut mencabar keterangan SP14 semasa pemeriksaan balas dengan mencadangkan seorang pemilik stesen minyak Caltex di Wang Kelian yang dikenali dengan nama Yoon atau nama penuhnya Azrol Hisham bin Hussin, seperti yang tercatat dalam senarai saksi pihak pendakwaan, telah memberi wang sebanyak RM2,000.00 kepada OKT untuk tajaan bola sepak Piala Ketua Polis Perlis tersebut. Wang pemberian Yoon sebanyak RM2,000.00 tersebut telah disita dan terdapat dalam beg yang dirampas daripada OKT, iaitu Ekshibit P11. S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ [24] Walaupun SP14 dalam keterangannya tidak pasti wang RM2,000.00 tersebut untuk tujuan apa, namun SP14 bersetuju yang Yoon boleh menjelaskan mengenainya. Bahagian keterangan SP14 yang relevan adalah seperti yang berikut: “Pemeriksaan Balas Setuju ada seorang saksi bernama Yoon tauke minyak Caltex di Wang Kelian. Ya, tahu tentang saksi ini. Kamu yang beri arahan supaya saksi ini dikesan? Ya. Saksi dikesan dan direkod statement. Setuju atau tidak yang Yoon Pemilik Caltex ini merupakan salah seorang yang beri wang kepada OKT untuk tajaan bola sepak Piala Ketua Polis Perlis. Tak pasti. Nama Yoon ini diberitahu oleh OKT kepada kamu. Tak ingat. S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ Untuk tujuan apa saksi ini dikesan? Sebab saksi ini dikesan kerana dia memberi RM2000 kepada OKT. Macam mana kamu tahu dia beri RM2000 kepada OKT. Saya tidak ingat. ... Berkenaan RM2000 ini boleh dijelaskan oleh Yoon? Setuju. ... Ada rekod statement Yoon. Ada. Dan untuk perbicaraan, ada tidak sapina dikeluarkan ke atas Yoon untuk hadir memberi keterangan di Mahkamah? Tiada.”. S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ [25] Berdasarkan keterangan SP14 semasa pemeriksaan balas tersebut, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa ASP Bahari dan Yoon adalah saksi penting dan material yang boleh menjelaskan dan mengesahkan sama ada wang RM1,000.00 dan RM2,000.00 tersebut adalah untuk tajaan bola sepak Piala Ketua Polis Perlis atau tidak. [26] Oleh itu, pada pendapat Mahkamah ini adalah wajar bagi pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil ASP Bahari dan Yoon untuk memberi keterangan bagi membuktikan yang wang RM1,000.00 dan RM2,000.00 tersebut telah diterima oleh OKT secara rasuah dan suapan daripada pengadu sepertimana Pertuduhan-Pertuduhan tersebut. [27] Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah ini mendapati kedua-dua ASP Bahari dan Yoon telah tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan di Mahkamah bagi pihak pendakwaan dan hanya ASP Bahari sahaja yang ditawarkan sebagai saksi kepada pihak pembelaan. Tiada penjelasan diberikan oleh pihak pendakwaan mengapa ASP Bahari dan Yoon tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi pihak pendakwaan. [28] Pada pendapat Mahkamah ini, memandangkan ASP Bahari dan Yoon adalah saksi penting dan material yang dapat menjelaskan dan S/N Kvg7LxoNuEWccll4fGofNQ mengesahkan sama ada wang RM1,000.00 dan RM2,000.00 tersebut adalah untuk tajaan bola sepak Piala Ketua Polis Perlis atau tidak, maka kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil mereka untuk memberi keterangan di Mahkamah menyebabkan Mahkamah ini membangkitkan anggapan inferens bertentangan (presumption of adverse inference) di bawah seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 [Akta 56] terhadap pihak pendakwaan, iaitu pihak pendakwaan seolah-olah cuba menyembunyikan daripada Mahkamah suatu fakta yang tidak berpihak kepada pihak pendakwaan. [29] Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut: “Court may presume existence of certain fact