MOHD ROSLAN BIN ZAKARIA

MOHD ROSLAN BIN ZAKARIA

The court found the prosecution proved the accused was a public officer and that he took actions throughout the procurement process (preparing and submitting Green forms, obtaining and certifying three quotations, arranging supporting documents) that amounted to 'mencadangkan' suppliers in which he had an interest; the statutory presumption under Section 23(2) ASPRM therefore applied and the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the accused is guilty of the three amended offences under Section 23(1) ASPRM 2009.

Citation
TA-61R-48-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Prosecution: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused/orang Kena Tuduh: MOHD ROSLAN BIN ZAKARIA
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 August 2024
Case Number
TA-61R-48-08/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Anti‑corruption (asprm 2009) / Conviction at Trial; Appeal Filed by Accused
Outcome
Accused convicted on all three amended charges under Section 23(1) ASPRM 2009; presumption under Section 23(2) ASPRM applied and not rebutted
Legal Topics
Use of Office for Gratification, Conflict of Interest, Section 23 ASPRM Presumption, Burden to Rebut on Balance of Probabilities, Procurement Procedure and Tendering
Source Language
Malay/English
Anti‑corruption Criminal Law Public Procurement Law Evidence Law Use of Office for Gratification Conflict of Interest Section 23 ASPRM Presumption Burden to Rebut on Balance of Probabilities +1 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecution

MOHD ROSLAN BIN ZAKARIA

Accused/orang Kena Tuduh

Procedural Posture

Criminal Anti‑corruption (asprm 2009) / Conviction at Trial; Appeal Filed by Accused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused, a public officer, used his office or position to obtain gratification by recommending suppliers in which he had an interest contrary to Section 23(1) ASPRM 2009
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption under Section 23(2) ASPRM is triggered
  3. 3 Whether the accused rebutted the presumption on the balance of probabilities (Section 23(3))

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution proved the accused was a public officer and that he took actions throughout the procurement process (preparing and submitting Green forms, obtaining and certifying three quotations, arranging supporting documents) that amounted to 'mencadangkan' suppliers in which he had an interest; the statutory presumption under Section 23(2) ASPRM therefore applied and the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the accused is guilty of the three amended offences under Section 23(1) ASPRM 2009.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on all three amended charges under Section 23(1) ASPRM 2009; presumption under Section 23(2) ASPRM applied and not rebutted

Orders

  • Mensabitkan tertuduh bagi ketiga‑tiga pertuduhan pindaan di bawah Seksyen 23(1) ASPRM 2009
  • Mahkamah mengaktifkan anggapan di bawah Seksyen 23(2) ASPRM dan mendapati pembelaan gagal mematahkan anggapan tersebut pada imbangan kebarangkalian