AZMIL MUNTAPHA BIN ABAS

AZMIL MUNTAPHA BIN ABAS

The High Court held the trial judge did not err in finding a prima facie case for the alternative offence under section 165 Penal Code: the prosecution established the accused was a public servant who received RM5,000 deposited into his account, the receipt was linked to requests concerning sentencing of the accused persons, and the statutory presumption under section 50(3) ASPRM 2009 applied and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities. SP3 and SP4, though implicated, were properly assessed as requiring corroboration but their evidence was found credible and corroborated by contemporaneous banking and forensic evidence; documentary claims of a loan were unproven. Accordingly the...

Citation
BA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu / Appellant: Azmil Muntapha bin Abas; Respondent / Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 July 2023
Case Number
BA-42R(A)-4-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (bribery/public Officer) / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part and original sentence set aside.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Public Officer Misconduct, Accomplice Evidence, Statutory Presumptions, Admissibility of Documentary Evidence, Prima Facie Test, Sentencing Review, Investigative Jurisdiction
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑corruption Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Judicial Conduct Bribery Public Officer Misconduct Accomplice Evidence +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 10 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azmil Muntapha bin Abas

Perayu / Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent / Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (bribery/public Officer) / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a prima facie case at the close of the prosecution’s case
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption under section 50(3) of ASPRM 2009 applied and was properly invoked
  3. 3 Whether SP3 and SP4 were accomplices/rakan sejenayah and whether their evidence required corroboration

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the trial judge did not err in finding a prima facie case for the alternative offence under section 165 Penal Code: the prosecution established the accused was a public servant who received RM5,000 deposited into his account, the receipt was linked to requests concerning sentencing of the accused persons, and the statutory presumption under section 50(3) ASPRM 2009 applied and was not rebutted on the balance of probabilities. SP3 and SP4, though implicated, were properly assessed as requiring corroboration but their evidence was found credible and corroborated by contemporaneous banking and forensic evidence; documentary claims of a loan were unproven. Accordingly the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part and original sentence set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Appeal against sentence allowed; original sentence set aside.