Mohd Idham Bin Mokhtar (JA-61R-24-12/2021)

Criminal case no. JA-61R-24-12/2021 Pertuduhan pindaan “Bahawa kamu pada 19 November 2019, di Maybank Islamic Berhad, Cawangan Mersing, No. 22, 23, 24 Jalan Ismail, di dalam Daerah Mersing, di dalam Negeri Johor, sebagai seorang penjawat awam, iaitu Jurutera Daerah Gred J48, Pejabat Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) Daerah Mersing, telah menyetuju terima untuk diri kamu suatu benda yang berharga iaitu wang berjumlah RM9,000.00 melalui akaun Maybank kamu yang bernombor 151098448841 dengan tiada balasan daripada Ahmad Aza bin Abdullah (No. K/P: 770208-01- 6513) melalui akaun Maybank Perniagaan Syaza bernombor 551098512794 yang mana kamu ketahui ada hubungan dengan tugas rasmi kamu sebagai Jurutera Daerah, Pejabat Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) Daerah Mersing dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 165 Kanun Keseksaan”.

Criminal case no. JA-61R-9-06/2022 Pertuduhan “Bahawa kamu, pada 8 Julai 2021, jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang, di Pejabat Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya Daerah Mersing, No. 1000, Jalan Pancur, 86800, di dalam Daerah Mersing, di dalam Negeri Johor, sebagai seorang ejen Kerajaan Malaysia iaitu Jurutera Daerah Gred J48 di Pejabat Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) Daerah Mersing, telah secara rasuah memperoleh untuk diri kamu suatu suapan iaitu wang tunai berjumlah RM 13,000.00 daripada Mohamad Nasirudin bin Salleh (No. K/P: 900826-01-5983) sebagai suatu upah bagi melakukan suatu perbuatan berhubungan dengan hal ehwal prinsipal kamu, iaitu, melantik Syarikat Nasirudin Bugar Enterprise untuk melaksanakan Kerja-Kerja Menaiktaraf Balai Raya Wanita Kampung Sri Pantai, Mersing, Johor, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 17(a) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 24(1) Akta yang sama”. Pertuduhan pindaan kepada pertuduhan pilihan “Bahawa kamu, pada 8 Julai 2021, jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang, di Pejabat Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya Daerah Mersing, No. 1000, Jalan Pancur, 86800, di dalam Daerah Mersing, di dalam Negeri Johor, sebagai seorang penjawat awam iaitu Jurutera Daerah Gred J48, Pejabat Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) Daerah Mersing, telah menyetuju terima untuk diri kamu suatu benda yang berharga iaitu wang tunai berjumlah RM 13,000.00 dengan tiada balasan daripada Mohamad Nasirudin bin Salleh (No. K/P: 900826-01-5983) yang mana kamu ketahui ada hubungan dengan tugas rasmi kamu sebagai Jurutera Daerah, Pejabat Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) Daerah Mersing dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 165 Kanun Keseksaan”. [2] The accused claimed trial for the charges. A joint trial was conducted for all the offences charged. At the close of the prosecution’s case, this Court found that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against the accused. Thus, the accused was acquitted and discharged from the charges without calling for his defence. [3] Being dissatisfied, the prosecution is now appealing the acquittals and discharges to the High Court. Prosecution’s case [4] To prove its case, the prosecution called fifteen witnesses. Criminal case no. JA-61R-24-12/2021 [5] The accused was a government engineer with the Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR), Mersing, Johor. On 19.11.2019, PW14, Ahmad Aza bin Abdullah, a contractor awarded a project by JKR Mersing Mersing, transferred RM9,000.00 into the accused’s bank account. As a public servant, the accused had accepted a valuable thing for himself, and there was no consideration from him for what he had accepted. [6] The prosecution further alleged that the accused knew that PW14 had a connection with his official functions regarding the awarded project. Criminal case no. JA-61R-9-06/2022 [7] On 8.7.2021, as an engineer with the JKR Mersing, the accused corruptly obtained RM13,000.00 from PW12, a contractor, as a reward for awarding a project to him. [8] Alternatively, on 8.7.2021, the accused accepted RM13,000.00 from PW12 for himself without any consideration. The accused also knew that PW12 had a connection with his official functions. Discussion and analysis Criminal case no. JA-61R-24-12/2021 [9] Section 165 of the Penal Code provides: Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing, without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted, or about to be transacted, by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. [Emphasis added] [10] Based on the charge preferred, the prosecution was required to prove all four (4) ingredients of the offence for a prima facie case against the accused. They were:

that the accused was a public servant;

that the accused accepted a valuable thing for himself;

that there was no consideration for the valuable thing the accused accepted; and

that the accused knew PW14 had a connection with his official functions.

that the accused was a public servant. [11] With regard to the first ingredient of the offence, it was not disputed that at the material time, the accused was the Jurutera Daerah for Jabatan Kerja Raya, Mersing, Johor. It was clear that the accused was a public servant pursuant to section 21(i) of the Code, which states as follows: The words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following: ......................

every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, on behalf of Government, or to make any survey, assessment, or contract on behalf of Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of Government, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of Government, and every officer in the service or pay of Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty. [Emphasis added] [12] Through PW1, the prosecution tendered P1(1-3), which was the certificate of the office held by the accused pursuant to section 55(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 [the Act]. The certificate was a prima facie proof that the accused received the emoluments as specified in P1. This supported the description in section 21(i) of the Code that the accused was an officer in the service or pay of the Government. A person who was in the service or pay of the Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of public duty, was deemed a public servant: Mohd Khir Toyo v. PP [2015] 8 CLJ 769 FC. [13] In any event, the accused did not dispute that he was a public servant. In the circumstances, I found the prosecution had proved the first ingredient of the offence against him.

(ii) that the accused accepted a valuable thing for himself. [14] For the second ingredient of the offence, the valuable thing involved was the RM9,000.00 that the accused allegedly accepted. The amount could not reasonably or logically be argued as having no value. Hence, I was satisfied to find that the money was a valuable thing as stipulated in section 165 of the Code. [15] The accused was charged with the offence of accepting the money for himself. He was not charged with obtaining a valuable thing, which was also an offence under the said section 165. He was also not indicted for corruptly receiving a gratification, which was an offence under the Act. In the correct Malay language translation, accepting is “menyetuju terima”, obtaining is “memperoleh” and receiving is “menerima”. [16] In my view, accepting something is not the same as obtaining or receiving it. The three words should not be used and applied interchangeably because the offences are distinct. Each word has a different meaning for the prosecution to prove its case. The difference between the words is not merely semantics; they have legal effects and consequences. After all, Parliament did not legislate in vain to create the three distinct offences as provided for in the two statutes. [17] Distinct offences mean separate, different and distinguishable criminal offences. Each has its own legal ingredients to be proved and must be proved separately. It is wrong to pronounce that the offences of accepting, obtaining and receiving are the same and do not constitute any difference whether an accused is to be acquitted or convicted. The three offences are clearly provided for by law, and the Court must carefully distinguish and determine each offence based on the evidence adduced. Otherwise, why would the law provide for three plainly different words for corruption offences? [18] Accepting implies a voluntary and conscious decision to take possession of something offered. It is not just a passive receipt of something but carries an element of choice and agreement. For example, “He asked for RM10,000,00 but accepted a lesser amount given to him ”, or “ He did not accept the amount of bribe offered”, or “ He accepted his fate long ago”. In short, it is up to someone whether to accept or not to accept something that is offered, given or befallen upon him. [19] Did the prosecution manage to prove that the accused accepted the money? From the totality of the evidence adduced, I did not think so. In so far as the RM9,000.00 deposited into the accused’s Maybank account, this was proved by PW14’s evidence. He said he transferred the money to the accused’s account. PW2, the Maybank Manager, supported his evidence. Aside from that, the accused’s bank statement (P4) showed that RM9,000.00 was entered into his account. Further, PW14’s business bank statement (P7) proved that PW14 had sent the same amount of money on the same date to the accused. [20] However, there was no evidence at all that the accused had accepted the money. He did not indicate anything on his part. As alluded to, accepting implies a voluntary and conscious decision by the accused to take something offered. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to that effect. No evidence that the accused had any say or opportunity to accept or reject the amount offered or a different amount. And there was no evidence from PW14 that he met the accused about the money. The prosecution failed to ask PW14 himself about the matter. [21] All that remained was that the accused had received the money into his account. But the prosecution did not see it fit to charge him with the offence of corruptly receiving anything. Receiving focuses more on the physical or formal act of getting something or being given something. It does not imply agreement, consent or approval as in accepting. For example, “He received the bad news that his friend had died”, or “You received a letter even if you don’t want it”, or “Money is transferred into your bank account – you received it”. [22] Therefore, I found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had accepted or menyetuju terima RM9,000.00 sent by PW14 as charged. [23] Apart from being indicted for accepting the money, the accused was also charged with accepting the money for himself. But on the evidence adduced, I found that the money was not for the accused but for others. This was because PW14 clearly said that he transferred the money not for the accused. It was to pay for a group holiday to Sabah, and the accused was not included. PW14 explained that he did not know how to buy airline tickets, which was why he asked the accused to purchase them. PW14 added that the RM9,000.00 was fully used to buy the tickets. Further, the accused did not get anything from the RM9,000.00. [24] The notes of evidence during PW14’s examination-in-chief showed: SP14 : Transaksi dibuat untuk bayar bil percutian kes Sabah. TPR : Percutian untuk siapa Encik Aza? SP14 : Percutian by group. .............................................. .............................................. TPR : Adakah tertuduh merupakan salah seorang di dalam group yang Encik Aza nyatakan tadi? SP14 : Tidak. .............................................. .............................................. TPR : Tadi Encik Aza ada menyatakan tertuduh tidak mengikuti trip ini, tetapi mengapa Encik Aza transfer wang ini kepada tertuduh? SP14 : Saya transfer untuk minta tolong dengan Encik Idham untuk belikan tiket flight. [25] In PW14’s cross-examination, the notes of evidence read: PB : Adakah berlaku pembelian tiket kapal terbang Air Asia untuk trip ke Sabah? SP14 : Ya. PB : Adakah tertuduh menyertai trip ke Sabah? SP14 : Tidak. PB : Adakah daripada RM9,000 itu daripada jumlah itu atau sebahagiannya diterima ataupun digunakan oleh tertuduh untuk perkara lain? SP14 : Tidak. PB : Adakah semua jumlah RM9,000 itu direalisasikan dengan pembelian tiket Air Asia ke Sabah? SP14 : Ya. PB : Adakah tertuduh menerima apa-apa faedah daripada jumlah RM9,000 itu? SP14 : Tidak. [26] The prosecution itself adduced evidence to show that the money was not for the accused but for others, to buy group flight tickets for a holiday in Sabah. The option to charge someone for accepting a valuable thing for any other person, rather than for himself, is provided for in section 165 of the Penal Code. However, the prosecution did not choose the alternative. Thus, it failed to prove that the accused accepted the money for himself as charged. [27] It should be noted that the prosecution did not explain the group’s decision to go to Sabah, how it came about, or why PW14 decided to pay for the flight tickets himself. Further, there was no sufficient narrative about PW14’s involvement with the accused or their connection to the group. [28] To conclude, I found that the prosecution failed to prove the second ingredient of the offence, specifically that the accused had accepted a valuable thing for himself.

(iii) that there was no consideration for the valuable thing the accused accepted. [29] The accused was indicted for accepting the RM9,000.00 without consideration. Consideration is something given or promised by one person in exchange for something given or promised by another person. A promise to do something illegal or impossible could not be regarded as a valid consideration. [30] Given that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused accepted the valuable thing for himself, it followed that the matter of consideration did not arise. Only after the acceptance had been proven and if there were indeed no consideration, then this would tell against the accused. [31] Thus, I was satisfied that the prosecution failed to prove the third ingredient of the offence as well.

(iv) that the accused knew PW14 had a connection with his official functions. [32] On this final ingredient of the offence, all that was required for the prosecution to prove was that the accused knew PW14 had a connection with his official functions. Section 165 of the Penal Code specified the particulars in the charge that the prosecution had framed. [33] I had thoroughly examined the evidence adduced and found none indicating that the accused knew PW14 had a connection with his official function. Even PW14 did not testify that he had met the accused, which could relate to the accused’s knowledge of the matter. [34] Let’s look further into PW14’s testimony. He was the contractor awarded the project for SMK Anjung Batu by JKR Mersing (see P18). However, he did not bid for the project using his company, Perniagaan Syaza. He used another company, Omaq Enterprise, which Omar bin Lamri supposedly owned. This was because his company did not qualify for the project. This was what PW14 said in his examination-in-chief: TPR : Sebentar tadi Encik Aza ada menyatakan ada masukkan tender di SMK Anjung Batu, adakah Encik Aza masuk tender tersebut melalui Perniagaan Syaza? SP14 : Tidak, Syarikat Omaq. TPR : Boleh encik jelaskan kenapa encik masukkan melalui Omaq Enterprise walaupun bukan milik Encik Aza? SP14 : Pasal kerja ini projek ini kriteria G1. Saya punya Syarikat G4, so tidak boleh masuk. [35] Did the prosecution therefore adduce any document to prove that the accused knew PW14 had a connection with his official functions? I found there was none. Even though P34(1-4), which was the Borang Sebutharga Kerja applying for the project, listed PW14’s name and signature, the statement concerned only PW14 acting as a witness for Omar bin Lamri. There was no evidence that the accused knew who PW14 was or that he had ever seen P34. Further, no evidence was adduced that the accused knew PW14 was using another company to apply for the project. [36] It was similar to P35(1-4), which was the Pemberitahuan Penerimaan Sebutharga purportedly signed by the accused on 8.5.2019 at page 2. On page 4, it showed that Omar bin Lamri signed for the contractor, and PW14 signed as a witness. Both did that on a different date, which was 10.6.2019. In any case, it was never properly proved that the accused had signed P35, as no witness attested to it. It was also similar to P37, which was the Borang Perjanjian Inden Kerja, which had two different dates for the accused, Omar bin Lamri, and PW14. There was no proof that the three of them signed the documents together at the same time. Therefore, none of those documents could positively prove that the accused knew about PW14. [37] Further, even though the said documents were admissible pursuant to section 41A of the Act, the weight to be attached to them was entirely a different matter and consideration. It does not dictate what weight a Court should give to the documents. A Court retains the right to give such evidence minimal weight or zero weight, even after the documents have been accepted as evidence. The said section provides: Where any document or a copy of any document is obtained by the Commission under this Act, such document shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings under this Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other written law. [38] Thus, all the documents adduced failed to sufficiently prove that the accused knew PW14 had a connection with his official functions. Omar bin Lamri was also not called as a witness to testify that the accused knew about PW14. [39] In the circumstances, I found the prosecution failed to prove the fourth and final ingredient of the offence. Criminal case no. JA-61R-9-06/2022 [40] The principal charge against the accused under section 17(a) of the Act provides: A person commits an offence if –

being an agent, he corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principals’s affairs or business; [Emphasis added] [41] Based on the charge preferred, the prosecution was required to prove all three (3) ingredients of the offence for a prima facie case against the accused. They were:

that the accused was an agent;

that the accused corruptly obtained for himself RM13,000.00; and

that the gratification was a reward for having done an act in relation to his principal’s affairs.

that the accused was an agent. [42] I was satisfied to find that the accused was an agent based on the following. [43] Section 3 of the Act defines an agent as – “agent” means any person employed by or acting for another, and includes an officer of a public body or an officer serving in or under any public body, a trustee, an administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased person, a subcontractor, and any person employed by or acting for such trustee, administrator or executor, or subcontractor; [Emphasis added] [44] Since an agent includes an “officer of a public body”, the same section 3 of the Act provides an “officer of a public body” as: “officer of a public body” means any person who is a member, an officer, an employee or a servant of a public body, and includes a member of the administration, a member of Parliament, a member of a State Legislative Assembly, a judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal or Federal Court, and any person receiving any remuneration from public funds, and, where the public body is a corporation sole, includes the person who is incorporated as such; [Emphasis added] [45] Further, section 3 of the Act defines a public body as: “Public body” includes –

the Government of Malaysia; ................................................... ................................................... ................................................... [46] PW1(1-3) had proved that the accused worked as a Jurutera Daerah JKR Mersing between 3.9.2018 and 16.7.2020. From the said documents and the interpretations in section 3 above, there was no doubt in my mind that the accused was an agent as stipulated in section 17(a) of the Act. The accused did not challenge or dispute that he was also an agent. [47] Therefore, the prosecution had proved the first ingredient of the offence against the accused.

(ii) that the accused corruptly obtained for himself RM13,000.00. [48] The prosecution alleged that the accused corruptly obtained for himself a gratification amounting to RM13,000.00 from PW12, Mohd Nasirudin bin Salleh, a contractor. I found that the prosecution failed to prove this ingredient of the offence for the following reasons. [49] On 12.2.2025, during the trial, the prosecution adduced PW12’s written statement prepared under section 402B of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was PSSP12. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of PSSP12 were most pertinent concerning the evidence which told against the accused. The paragraphs were as follows:

Berkenaan wang berjumlah RM 13,000.00 yang dijumpai pada Mohd ldham Bin Mokhtar, wang tersebut adalah merupakan wang yang saya telah berikan kepada beliau pada 8 Julai 2021 jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang di Pejabat Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) Daerah Mersing. Wang RM 13,000.00 yang saya berikan kepada beliau adalah wang daripada simpanan Maybank saya sendiri dan bukannya daripada akaun bank syarikat saya. Jumlah wang yang saya keluarkan daripada akaun simpanan Maybank saya ini adalah berjumlah lebih kurang RM 6,000.00. Manakala, selebihnya saya menggunakan wang hasil perniagaan saya yang saya simpan di rumah berjumlah RM 7,000.00.

Sebelum saya pergi ke Pejabat JKR Daerah Mersing, saya ada menelefon Mohd Idham Bin Mokhtar dan bertanyakan kepada beliau, adakah beliau berada di pejabat JKR Mersing. Selepas dimaklumkan beliau ada di pejabat, saya memberitahu kepada beliau, bahawa saya ingin berjumpa dengan beliau di pejabat dan Mohd Idham cuma mengiyakan sahaja tanpa bertanya kepada saya tujuan saya ingin berjumpa dengan beliau. Selepas menamatkan perbualan saya dan Mohd Idham di telefon, saya seterusnya menuju ke pejabat JKR Mersing untuk bertemu dengan beliau. Saya pergi ke sana seorang diri.

Setibanya saya di pejabat JKR Mersing, saya seterusnya masuk ke dalam bilik beliau dan bersembang – sembang dengan beliau dalam lebih kurang 5 minit. Selepas itu, saya mengeluarkan wang tunai RM 13,000.00 dan saya serahkan kepada beliau dengan meletakkan di atas meja dalam bilik beliau. Kemudian, saya memberitahu kepada beliau bahawa ini adalah duit untuk perbelanjaan beliau. Seterusnya, saya mendengar Mohd Idham membalas "OK" dan mengambil duit tersebut dan meletakkannya di dalam beg beliau. Selepas itu saya keluar daripada bilik beliau dan beredar keluar daripada pejabat JKR Mersing.

Tujuan pemberian wang tunai RM 13,000.00 kepada Mohd Idham adalah sebagai hadiah atau sagu hati yang saya ingin berikan kepada beliau di atas sebab saya berjaya mendapatkan projek daripada JKR Mersing. Tambahan lagi, disebabkan sebelum ini saya pernah memberitahu beliau bahawa saya ada memasuki sebut harga bagi Projek Menaiktaraf Balai Raya Wanita Kg Seri Pantai, Mersing, Johor di JKR Mersing dan meminta kepada beliau untuk melihat sebut harga yang saya hantar kepada JKR Mersing. Sewaktu saya ada memaklumkan kepada beliau untuk melihat dokumen sebut harga saya tersebut, beliau hanya menjawab "OK" dan tidak pernah meminta apa – apa daripada saya sebagai balasan. [Emphasis added] [50] Even though paragraph 18 above clearly states the reason PW12 gave RM13,000.00 to the accused, the Prosecuting Officer decided to ask more questions on the reason the money was given. The notes of evidence showed: PO : Jadi boleh jelaskan kepada mahkamah kenapa Encik Nasir bagi wang sebanyak RM13,000.00 ini? SP12 : Saya tidak boleh nak jawab. PO : RM13,000.00 ini kenapa Encik Nasir nak bagi RM13,000.00 ini kepada Idham? SP12 : Masalahnya saya tidak bagi dia. ……………………………………………. ……………………………………………. PO : Pada perenggan 15 juga, Encik Nasir nyatakan “Wang RM 13,000.00 yang saya berikan kepada beliau adalah wang daripada simpanan Maybank saya sendiri dan bukannya daripada akaun bank syarikat saya.” Yang mana Encik Nasir nyatakan lagi, “Jumlah wang yang saya keluarkan daripada akaun simpanan Maybank saya ini adalah berjumlah lebih kurang RM 6,000.00. Manakala, selebihnya saya menggunakan wang hasil perniagaan saya yang saya simpan di rumah berjumlah RM 7,000.00.” Boleh Encik Nasir jelaskan wang ini untuk tujuan apa yang diberikan kepada Idham ini? SP12 : Masalahnya saya tidak bagi duit RM13,000 ini. ………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………… PO : Soalan saya tadi dekat dalam pernyataan bertulis saksi ini Encik Nasir ada sebut banyak kali saya beri kepada Idham RM13,000. Lepas itu keterangan yang Encik Nasir bagi dekat mahkamah pada hari ini Encik Nasir katakan tidak ada beri RM13,000. Kenapa berbeza Encik Nasir? SP12 : Sebab waktu saya dekat SPRM saya terpaksa kena buat macam gini sebabnya saya reka sebabnya saya nak keluar, 7 hari saya kena tahan. [Emphasis added] [51] The answers given by PW12 on 12.2.2025, therefore, gravely contradicted his earlier incriminating written statements against the accused. The Prosecuting Officer asked for the trial to be postponed to obtain further instructions concerning what had transpired. The defence did not object, and I allowed the application to adjourn the case. [52] The trial resumed on 13.2.2015 for PW12’s continued testimony. The relevant notes of evidence read: PO : Dengan izin tuan, untuk sambung pemeriksaan utama ke atas saksi ini mohon untuk saksi dirujuk dengan PSSP12. Boleh Encik Nasir rujuk kepada perenggan ke-15 muka surat ke-9. Pada perenggan ke-15 Encik Nasir mengatakan, “Berkenaan wang berjumlah RM 13,000.00 yang dijumpai pada Mohd ldham Bin Mokhtar, wang tersebut adalah merupakan wang yang saya telah berikan kepada beliau pada 8 Julai 2021”. Encik Nasir kata wang berjumlah RM13,000 dijumpai pada Mohd Idham bin Mokhtar, boleh beritahu kepada mahkamah siapa yang jumpa RM13,000 itu? SP12 : Rasa saya, saya tidak ada bagi keterangan macam gini. ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… PO : Saya rujuk pula Encik Nasir kepada perenggan 16, PSSP12. Encik Nasir ada beritahu, “Sebelum saya pergi ke Pejabat JKR Daerah Mersing, saya ada menelefon Mohd Idham bin Mokhtar”, ada di situ? SP12 : Ada. PO : Semasa Encik Nasir menelefon Mohd Idham bin Mokhtar ini, Encik Nasir berada di mana? SP12 : Saya reka cerita ini. Hakim: Perenggan mana? PO : Ayat pertama perenggan 16. Seterusnya Encik Nasir masih di perenggan 16 ada menyatakan, “Selepas dimaklumkan beliau ada di pejabat, saya memberitahu kepada beliau, bahawa saya ingin berjumpa dengan beliau di pejabat”. Boleh Encik Nasir beritahu kepada mahkamah kenapa nak jumpa dengan Idham ini? SP12 : Tuan Hakim, saya reka cerita ini. PO : Perenggan 17 Encik Nasir ada menyatakan, “Setibanya saya di pejabat JKR Mersing, saya seterusnya masuk ke dalam bilik beliau dan bersembang – sembang dengan beliau dalam lebih kurang 5 minit. Selepas itu, saya mengeluarkan wang tunai RM 13,000.00 dan saya serahkan kepada beliau dengan meletakkan di atas meja dalam bilik beliau.” Boleh Encik Nasir beritahu kepada mahkamah, Encik Nasir keluarkan wang ini daripada mana? SP12 : Saya reka cerita ja. PO : Masih lagi di perenggan 17, Encik Nasir ada nyatakan “Kemudian, saya memberitahu kepada beliau bahawa ini adalah duit untuk perbelanjaan beliau.” Boleh Encik Nasir jelaskan perbelanjaan beliau ini maksudnya apa? SP12 : Semua saya reka cerita. PO : Masih lagi di perenggan 17, Encik Nasir ada nyatakan “Seterusnya, saya mendengar Mohd Idham membalas "OK" dan mengambil duit tersebut dan meletakkannya di dalam beg beliau.” Boleh Encik Nasir beritahu kepada mahkamah, boleh gambarkan beg tersebut? SP12 : Saya reka cerita. PO : Seterusnya pada perenggan ke-18, Encik Nasir ada nyatakan “Tujuan pemberian wang tunai RM 13,000.00 kepada Mohd Idham adalah sebagai hadiah atau sagu hati yang saya ingin berikan kepada beliau di atas sebab saya berjaya mendapatkan projek daripada JKR Mersing.” Boleh Encik Nasir jelaskan kepada mahkamah apa maksud Encik Nasir hadiah atau saguhati yang diberikan kepada beliau atas sebab berjaya mendapatkan projek JKR ini? SP12 : Saya reka cerita, Tuan Hakim. ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… PO : Seterusnya Encik Nasir, saya rujuk di perenggan yang terakhir muka surat terakhir, “Jumlah keseluruhan pengeluaran tunai amaun RM 1,500.00 sebanyak empat (4) kali transaksi yang dilakukan pada bulan Jun dan Julai 2021 adalah berjumlah RM 6,000.00. Setelah itu, saya telah mencampurkan wang tunai RM 7,000.00 yang saya simpan di rumah saya dan kemudiannya menjadi wang tunai berjumlah RM 13,000.00. Saya mengesahkan wang tunai RM 13,000.00 ini adalah wang yang saya telah berikan kepada Mohd Idham bin Mokhtar sebagai hadiah atau saguhati atas sebab syarikat saya, Syarikat Nasirudin Bugar Enterprise berjaya memperoleh Sebutharga Kerja-Kerja Menaiktaraf Balai Raya Wanita Kampung Sri Pantai, Mersing, Johor dari Pejabat JKR Mersing pada tahun 2021.” Boleh jelaskan apa maksud Encik Nasir berkenaan dengan hadiah atau saguhati? SP12 : Saya reka cerita. [Emphasis added] [53] The Prosecuting Officer then applied to impeach PW12’s credit pursuant to section 155(c) of the Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56]. However, he applied for an adjournment, stating that he did not have PW12’s full recorded statement from the investigation. The application was allowed. [54] The trial continued on 17.4.2025. Despite previously stating that he wished to impeach PW12’s credit, the Prosecuting Officer continued to ask PW12 more questions as follows: PO : Pada tarikh yang lepas Encik Nasir ada ditanya berkenaan dengan perenggan 16, “Sebelum saya pergi ke Pejabat JKR Daerah Mersing, saya ada menelefon Mohd Idham bin Mokhtar dan bertanyakan kepada beliau, adakah beliau berada di pejabat JKR Mersing.” Encik Nasir ditanyakan, encik berada di mana sewaktu telefon Idham dan Encik Nasir jawab saya reka cerita ini. Jadi boleh terangkan kepada mahkamah Encik Nasir apa yang direka pada perenggan 16 itu? SP12 : Reka yang saya cakap inilah. PO : Tadi dekat perenggan 16 Encik Nasir kata Encik Nasir telefon Idham kan, jadi Encik Nasir kata yang itu adalah rekaan. Jadi yang sebenarnya apa yang berlaku? SP12 : Saya pun tidak tahu berlaku apa, alih-alih saya kena tangkap itu je. Hakim: Yang para 16 itu mahkamah tidak jelas, reka di bahagian mana? Macam mana PO?

PO : Baik Encik Nasir, saya rujuk Encik Nasir kepada perenggan Perenggan 16 itu, “Sebelum saya pergi ke Pejabat JKR Daerah Mersing, saya ada menelefon Mohd Idham bin Mokhtar dan bertanyakan kepada beliau, adakah beliau berada di pejabat JKR Mersing.” Soalan saya kepada Encik Nasir pada ketika itu, Encik Nasir berada di mana sewaktu telefon Idham ini dan Encik Nasir jawab saya reka cerita. Jadi daripada perenggan 16 itu Encik Nasir, Encik Nasir kata Encik Nasir reka cerita betul? SP12 : Betul. PO : Jadi dekat bahagian perenggan 16 ini mana yang reka cerita, panjang itu perenggan 16 tu? SP12 : Kalau ikutkan semua sekali saya reka cerita. PO : Maksudnya kalau reka cerita benda ini berlaku atau tidak berlaku? SP12 : Tidak berlaku. PO : Masih lagi di perenggan 16, Encik Nasir ada nyatakan “Selepas dimaklumkan beliau ada di pejabat, saya memberitahu kepada beliau, bahawa saya ingin berjumpa dengan beliau di pejabat dan Mohd Idham cuma mengiyakan sahaja tanpa bertanya kepada saya tujuan saya ingin berjumpa dengan beliau.” Saya tanya Encik Nasir pada ketika itu kenapa nak jumpa Idham dan jawapan Encik Nasir pada tarikh yang lepas, saya reka cerita ini. Jadi sama juga ke jawapan Encik Nasir dengan tadi? SP12 : Ya, sama. PO : Rekaan benda itu tidak berlaku lah? SP12 : Tidak ada berlaku. PO : Baik Encik Nasir, kita pergi ke perenggan 17 pula. Encik Nasir sebelum ini saya telah rujuk kepada perenggan 17 berkenaan dengan pernyataan Encik Nasir “Setibanya saya di pejabat JKR Mersing, saya seterusnya masuk ke dalam bilik beliau dan bersembang – sembang dengan beliau dalam lebih kurang 5 minit. Selepas itu, saya mengeluarkan wang tunai RM 13,000.00 dan saya serahkan kepada beliau dengan meletakkan di atas meja dalam bilik beliau.” Soalan saya pada ketika itu, encik ditanya dari mana wang RM13,000 tersebut di keluarkan dan Encik Nasir jawab saya reka cerita ini. Jadi soalan saya pada hari ini apa cerita yang sebenarnya? SP12 : Saya reka ceritalah. PO : Jadi apa yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 17 adakah berlaku pada ketika itu Encik Nasir? SP12 : Tidak ada berlaku. PO : Adakah keseluruhan cerita pada perenggan 17 itu sebenarnya tidak berlaku Encik Nasir? SP12 : Tidak berlaku, saya reka. PO : Keseluruhan? SP12 : Keseluruhan. PO : Dengan izin tuan, saya pohon untuk saksi dirujuk dengan perenggan 18 pernyataan bertulis. Lihat pada perenggan 18 berkenaan dengan ayat “Tujuan pemberian wang tunai RM 13,000.00 kepada Mohd Idham adalah sebagai hadiah atau sagu hati yang saya ingin berikan kepada beliau di atas sebab saya berjaya mendapatkan projek daripada JKR Mersing.” Saya bertanyakan kepada Encik Nasir maksud hadiah dan saguhati yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 18 tersebut dan Encik Nasir jawab saya reka cerita ini. SP12 : Betul. PO : Jadi boleh beritahu mahkamah apa cerita yang sebenar untuk perenggan 18 ini keseluruhannya? SP12 : Saya reka. PO : Jadi keseluruhan perenggan 18 itu Encik Nasir, adakah ianya berlaku? SP12 : Tidak berlaku. PO : Dengan izin, saya pohon untuk saksi dirujuk dengan perenggan ke-21 pada muka surat 13 di perenggan terakhir. Encik Nasir ada nyatakan, “Jumlah keseluruhan pengeluaran tunai amaun RM 1,500.00 sebanyak empat (4) kali transaksi yang dilakukan pada bulan Jun dan Julai 2021 adalah berjumlah RM 6,000.00. Setelah itu, saya telah mencampurkan wang tunai RM 7,000.00 yang saya simpan di rumah saya dan kemudiannya menjadi wang tunai berjumlah RM 13,000.00. Saya mengesahkan wang tunai RM 13,000.00 ini adalah wang yang saya telah berikan kepada Mohd Idham bin Mokhtar sebagai hadiah atau saguhati atas sebab syarikat saya, Syarikat Nasirudin Bugar Enterprise berjaya memperoleh Sebutharga Kerja-Kerja Menaiktaraf Balai Raya Wanita Kampung Sri Pantai, Mersing, Johor dari Pejabat JKR Mersing pada tahun 2021.” Saya bertanyakan kepada Encik Nasir, maksud hadiah dan saguhati yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan itu dan Encik Nasir jawab saya reka cerita ini. Boleh Encik Nasir beritahu mahkamah apa cerita yang sebenar, apa yang berlaku sebenarnya, adakah berlaku ataupun tidak berlaku? SP12 : Saya reka semua sekali. [Emphasis added] [55] At this juncture, the prosecution again applied to impeach PW12’s credit under section 155(c) of Act 56, which stipulated that: Section 155. The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party or, with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him: ………………................................... …………………………………………

by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted; ………………………………………… [56] To impeach his credit, the prosecution chose to tender PW12’s original statements recorded under section 30(8) of the Act, which were allegedly materially different from his evidence in court. This meant that the application to impeach the credit was not relying on PSSP12. In my view, PSSP12 was also a former statement envisaged by section 155(c) of the Act, but the prosecution chose to refer to other statements that were recorded during an investigation. This, despite the fact that much time was allocated to the prosecution to refer to PSSP12 to show that PW12’s evidence significantly differed from his written statements. [57] PW12’s statements recorded under section 30(8) of the Act were subsequently marked as P32(1-23), consisting of 23 pages. The prosecution highlighted in red the portions in which PW12 had contradicted himself, and the statements were handed over to the Court. The highlighted portions were on pages 12, 13, 22, and 23, pointing out the contradictions to the Court. I had perused the highlighted parts and compared them with PW12’s evidence in Court. It was clear to me that there were indeed contradictions between the statements in P32 and what PW12 said in Court. Further, they were certainly not trivial or insignificant. I found that the contradictions were material and ruled accordingly: Muthusamy v. PP [1948] MLJ 57. [58] Since I had determined that the contradictions were material, I therefore allowed the prosecution to proceed with PW12’s impeachment. The prosecution then referred PW12 to the highlighted red sections of P32 and asked him to read them in silence. The notes of evidence showed: Hakim : Mahkamah tanya 4 muka surat tu saksi dan baca semua dah? SP12 : Dah. PO : Encik Nasir, adakah pernyataan di dalam rakaman percakapan Encik Nasir tadi itu 4 muka surat yang dihighlight dengan warna merah itu adakah dibuat oleh Encik Nasir? SP12 : Ya. [59] Since PW12 admitted making the statements, I marked them as exhibit P32(1-23). The Court then conducted the subsequent questioning of PW12. I pointed out the material contradictions and asked him to explain them. PW12 readily acknowledged that what he said in the statements contradicted what he told the prosecution in Court. He added that he fabricated the story about the money given to the accused. This was because he wanted to be released from detention. From all his answers, I found the most comprehensible was that he lied to the MACC, saying he gave the money to the accused. The significant notes of evidence showed: Hakim : Selain daripada itu boleh beritahu lagi? SP12: Bercanggah pasal duit je Tuan Hakim, yang RM13,000.00, RM7,000.00, RM6,000.00, RM1,500.00. Hakim : Kenapa dengan duit-duit ini? SP12 : Masa itu saya berbohong dengan SPRM, saya kata saya bagi Idham duit ini semua. Saya bohong pada SPRM saya nyatakan saya bagi duit pada Idham. Hakim : Boleh bagitahu lagi kalau ada apa-apa lagi nak jelaskan kenapa bercanggah? SP12 : Tidak ada, Tuan Hakim. Saya pun tidak faham juga baca ni, kadang-kadang faham, kadang-kadang kurang faham sikit. [60] At the end of the impeachment proceeding, I chose not to issue any immediate ruling on PW12’s credit. I informed the parties that I would make my ruling at the close of the prosecution’s case. I hereby do so. [61] As I understood it, the prosecution should make an application to impeach the credit of a witness only as a last resort, and after it has failed to examine a witness beneficially. In such a situation, the prosecution has to decide whether any part of the witness’s testimony could be ‘saved’ so that it could still be used to prove its case. If the answer is no, then the prosecution should apply to impeach the credit of that witness pursuant to Act 56. Otherwise, impeachment proceedings should not be the option. After all, the purpose of impeachment is to prevent PW12’s adverse evidence from remaining as evidence and being used against its case. The aim is also to reject evidence given by a witness due to unreliability or dishonesty. [62] In my view, impeaching the credit of PW12 meant that the prosecution was saying that he was unworthy of credit. From the proceedings, I found that PW12’s credit was successfully impeached. He clearly explained that he concocted a story and lied during the investigation against the accused, and that he did not give the money to him. Since his credit was impeached, I did not think I could pick and choose which of PW12’s evidence to believe. His evidence carried zero weight. To be unworthy of credit meant that PW12 could not be believed at all. [63] In subscribing to the view that PW12’s evidence should be totally disregarded, I was guided by the following established authorities. In Koay Chooi v. Regina [1955] CLJU 41, Spenser Wilkinson J opined that: What is perhaps more important is that this witness having been discredited by proof of an entirely inconsistent statement to the police the learned Magistrate appears to have given some weight to his evidence, which in my opinion he should not have done. [Emphasis added] [64] Further, in Matthew Lim v. Game Warden, Pahang [1959] CLJU 57, the High Court ruled that: Once this has been done and it is proved that the previous statement when compared with the evidence in Court contains material inconsistencies the witness’ credit is impeached and his evidence becomes worthless because the witness himself has been shown to be unworthy of credit. [Emphasis added] [65] In addition, the Federal Court in Public Prosecutor v. Munusamy [1980] CLJU 63 was of the opinion that: PW16, an immigration officer attached to Malacca was impeached. The learned Magistrate ruled that his evidence was to be ignored……. After the ruling made by the learned Magistrate, PW16 was no longer a witness for the prosecution in the real sense of the word for his evidence no longer constituted any part of the prosecution’s case. [Emphasis added] [66] If the prosecution thought that some parts of PW12’s evidence would still be helpful for its case, then it should have applied to cross-examine PW12 under section 154 of the Act 56, which stipulated: The court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. [67] In my opinion, pursuant to the application of the said section, the evidence of a hostile witness such as PW12 should not right away be wholly rejected even though he made previous inconsistent statements. Some parts of his evidence might be useful to the prosecution. PW12, therefore, should be treated in the same manner as any other witness. I was guided on this point based on the decision of PP v. Dzul Akmal bin Omar [1999] CLJU 399, where Abdul Wahab Patail J (as he then was) said: The mere fact a witness is cross-examined by the party calling him does not make the whole of his evidence unreliable and unacceptable. His evidence is evidence in the same manner as the evidence of any other witness and subject to scrutiny as that of any other witness before being accepted and in deciding what weight to be accorded to it: see Deodhari v. R.A 1937 P 34; Prafulla v. R, A 1931 C 401. [Emphasis added] [68] The prosecution did not indicate that it wished to save or salvage any part of PW12’s evidence for its case. And in its written submission, it did not address the impeachment proceeding nor present any arguments regarding PW12’s contradictory evidence. However, despite deciding to impeach PW12’s credit, the prosecution went on to say that PW12’s evidence had proved its case against the accused (see pages 18 and 19 of the written submission). To me, this was completely unjustified. [69] Given that PW12’s credit was successfully impeached and I was of the opinion that PW12’s evidence must be entirely rejected, was there any other evidence to prove that the accused had corruptly obtained for himself RM13,000.00? I found no such evidence, either from witnesses or documents. In point of fact, the prosecution’s initial narration was that PW12 had given the money to the accused himself by placing it on a table in the accused’s room. No one else was there. Further, this was not a situation in which PW12 had transferred the money to the accused’s bank account, where the prosecution could rely on the record of real evidence. In the absence of any other evidence to implicate the accused, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredient of the offence that the accused corruptly obtained for himself RM13,000.00. [70] There was another matter that I needed to touch on. It was this. The accused was indicted under section 17(a) of the Act for the offence of corruptly obtaining a gratification. The prosecution did not choose to indict him with the offence of corruptly accepting a gratification, which was also one of the offences stipulated in the said section. As I said, the difference between the words was not merely semantics but had far-reaching consequences. For that reason, did the prosecution adduce any evidence to support the offence of obtaining? I found that it failed to do so. [71] To my mind, obtaining implies acquiring something through a person’s effort, conduct, or demand, rather than by mere passive receipt. In other words, it means causing someone to acquire something as a result of his or her actions. In the charge, the prosecution correctly translated ‘obtaining’ as ‘memperoleh’ and not anything else. [72] In achieving this opinion, I was also guided by the decision of Abdul Karim bin Abdul Jalil JC (as he then was) in Mohd Asyraf Thiru Abdullah & Satu Lagi lwn PP [2013] 1 LNS 23. In that case, the learned JC took great care to explain what was meant by corruptly obtaining something. In paragraph 17, he stated: Harus dicatatkan pertuduhan ketiga terhadap Perayu 1 secara khusus menyebut “secara rasuah memperoleh’ dan pihak pendakwan hendaklah membuktikan unsur “memperoleh” ini. Oleh itu apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan perkataan ‘memperoleh” (obtain)? Semua pihak termasuk Hakim bicara tidak menitikberatkan pertimbangan ini. Oleh kerana perkataan ini tidak ditakrifkan dalam Akta Pencegah Rasuah 1997, rujukan makna biasa akan dicari terlebih dahulu. Dalam Reader’s Digest Great Dictionary of the English Language, perkataan “obtain” ditakrifkan sebagai mempunyai makna – “acquire or secure”. “Acquire” menurut Kamus Inggeris-Melayu Dewan, An English-Malay Dictionary, bermakna: “gain by one’s skill, ability, effort, memperoleh; 2. Mendapat “. Diperhatikan adanya unsur antara lain perolehan melalui usaha untuk mendapatkan sesuatu. [73] Further, in paragraph 18 of the case, reference was made to the Indian statutes and a book by Dr Ashok Dhamija, which described: The word ‘obtain’ is a strong word. It includes also things received by extortion. ‘Obtain’ means to secure or gain (some-thing) as the result of request or effort (Shorter English Dictionary). In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161 IPC, which can be, established by proof of either ‘acceptance’ or ‘obtainment’. …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… In the instant case, the Supreme Court observed that there was no effort, initiative or request on the part of the accused persons, and hence the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the said Act”. …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… Therefore, the word “obtain’ signifies an active conduct on the part of the person in obtaining a thing either for himself or for others.” (muka surat 687-688). [74] In addition, at paragraph 19, the learned JC went on to rule that: Seterusnya, daripada makna memperoleh (obtains) itu, perlukah pihak pendakwaan membuktikan permintaan atau tuntutan (demand) seperti dihujahkan oleh peguam Perayu? Saya berpendapat pendakwaan perlu membuktikan permintaan atau tuntutan (demand) untuk membangkitkan kesalahan yang berasaskan perkataan memperoleh seperti disebut dalam pertuduhan ketiga. [75] Reverting to the instant case, there was no evidence adduced to prove that the accused had, by his conduct or action, made any effort or demand the gratification as alleged. Even if PW12’s credit had not been impeached, all that the prosecution presented was that PW12 went to see the accused to give him the money and nothing else. Therefore, the offence of obtaining was not proved at all. [76] To conclude, I found that the prosecution failed to prove the required ingredient of the offence.

(iii) that the gratification was a reward for having done an act in relation to his principal’s affairs. [77] Given that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused corruptly obtained RM13,000.00 for himself, it followed that it also was unable to prove the final ingredient of the offence against the accused. It could not reasonably be gainsaid otherwise. [78] Let us move on to the amended alternative charge against the accused. He was indicted for the offence of accepting a valuable thing without consideration from PW12 pursuant to section 165 of the Penal Code. [79] As in the previous case of JA-61R-24-12/2021 that I discussed, the prosecution was required to prove four (4) ingredients of the offence. They were:

that the accused was a public servant;

that the accused accepted a valuable thing for himself;

that there was no consideration for the valuable thing the accused accepted; and

that the accused knew PW12 had a connection with his official functions. [80] For the first ingredient of the offence, I found that the prosecution had proved that the accused was a public servant for the same reasons I had deliberated in the previous charge against him. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the same argument. [81] For the second ingredient of the offence, that the accused had accepted a valuable thing for himself, I found that the prosecution failed to prove it. The factual matrix for this charge was the same as the principal charge previously under section 17(a) of the Act. Moreover, the prosecution applied to impeach PW12’s credit, and he was subsequently impeached. As a result, PW12’s testimony was rejected in its entirety. Thus, the prosecution could no longer rely on the PW12’s evidence to support the contention that the accused had accepted a valuable thing for himself. [82] Since it failed to prove the second ingredient of the offence, it must follow that the prosecution failed to prove the third ingredient as well. It was unnecessary to argue that, even though it failed to prove that the accused had accepted a valuable thing, the prosecution still managed to prove that there was no consideration for the valuable thing accepted. [83] For the fourth and final ingredient, the only evidence implicating the accused came from PW12’s written statement made under the Criminal Procedure Code, namely in paragraph 18 of PSSP12. Considering that PW12 was successfully impeached and his evidence was totally rejected, the prosecution could not rely on the written statements to prove the ingredient. There was also no other evidence from any witness or documents to prove the prosecution’s case. [84] Finally, I further found that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of accepting the valuable thing against the accused. Even if PW12 was a trustworthy witness and was not impeached, there was no evidence that the accused had accepted the valuable thing within the meaning of the offence. As I had discussed and analysed in length, accepting was not the same as receiving or obtaining. Nowhere in the evidence adduced was there any indication that the accused had accepted or menyetuju terima the valuable thing given to him. [85] From the evidence, there was only a passive receipt of the money by the accused, in that he received the money given to him. Receiving a valuable thing is not an offence provided for under section 165 of the Penal Code. Conclusion at the close of the prosecution’s case. [86] I found that the prosecution failed to establish all the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused. Further, I had subjected the whole evidence to a maximum evaluation, which was succinctly explained by the decision in PP v. Lee Hock Lai [2004] 1 CLJ 57: In my view, the ‘maximum evaluation’ refers to a proper and complete evaluation of all the evidence adduced to determine whether a prima facie case has or has not been made out. Thus, all the evidence adduced has to be scrutinised properly and this should not be just a perfunctory, cursory evaluation or an exercise of skimming over the surface of the evidence only. The prosecution must make out the ingredients of the charge with the evidence adduced. If the evaluation of the evidence results in doubts in the prosecution’s case at this stage of the proceedings itself then it cannot be said that a ‘prima facie’ has been made out. The defence ought not to be called merely to clear or clarify the doubts. The benefit of the doubt, if any, at the end of the prosecution’s case must go to the accused. [87] I found that the prosecution had not made a prima facie case against the accused (section 173(f)(ii) of the Code). The prosecution failed to adduce credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction (section 173(h)(iii) of the Code). [88] By maximum evaluation, the totality of the evidence was not sufficient for the defence to be called. That being the case, I was not prepared to convict the accused on the charges if he had elected to remain silent: Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85; PP v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457. Thus, the accused was acquitted and discharged on all the charges. Dated on this day, 20 January 2026 -sgd- (DATUK AHMAD KAMAL ARIFIN BIN ISMAIL) Judge Sessions Court Johor Bahru For the prosecution : Mohammad Shaiful bin Nasir Alis Izzati Azurib binti Mohd Rusdi Mohd Hanafi Firdhaus bin Abd Latif For the accused : Rosli bin Kamaruddin Muhammad Zahier bin Rosli Muhammad Zaim bin Rosli