Abd Razak Bin Mohd Darom

JA-61R-18-12/2022 Kand. 101 14/05/2026 09:45:38 IN THE SESSIONS COURT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR, MALAYSIA CRIMINAL CASE NO: JA-61R-18-12/2022 BETWEEN ABD RAZAK BIN MOHD DAROM ...APPELLANT IC: 821011-01-6197 AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT IN THE SESSIONS COURT JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR, MALAYSIA CRIMINAL CASE NO: JA-61R-19-12/2022 BETWEEN 1 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal MUHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN ABD RAZAK ...APPELANT IC: 850117-04-5079 AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Abd Razak bin Mohd Darom (the first accused), in the case JA-61R- 18-12-/2022, was indicted at the Sessions Court with an amended charge as follows: Pertuduhan pindaan “Bahawa kamu, pada bulan November 2019, di Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah Ledang, di dalam Daerah Tangkak, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah diberikan wang suapan berjumlah RM4,500.00 daripada Siti Aminah binti Nahar, (No Kad Pengenalan: 830101-10-5390) sebagai bayaran bagi Program Kecemerlangan SPM Mata Pelajaran Pendidikan Islam 2 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (Tasawur Islam) Sekolah-Sekolah Menengah Daerah Tangkak Tahun 2019, yang mana dalam pengetahuan kamu program tersebut tidak dilaksanakan dan kamu gagal melaporkan pemberian penyogokan kepada pihak Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 25(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 25(2) Akta yang sama. [2] Muhammad Faizal bin Abd Razak (the second accused), in another case of JA-61R-19-12/2022, was also indicted at the same Sessions Court with an amended charge: Pertuduhan pindaan “Bahawa kamu, di antara hujung bulan November 2019 hingga pertengahan bulan Disember 2019, di Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah Ledang, di dalam Daerah Tangkak, di dalam Negeri Johor, telah diberikan wang suapan berjumlah RM1,5000.00 daripada Siti Aminah binti Nahar, (No Kad Pengenalan: 830101-10-5390) sebagai bayaran bagi Perkhidmatan Penyediaan Makan Jamuan atau Mesyuarat bagi Perkhidmatan Bekalan Makan dan Minum Bengkel Kerja Pengurusan Strategik PPD Tangkak yang mana dalam pengetahuan kamu program tersebut tidak dilaksanakan dan kamu telah gagal melaporkan 3 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal pemberian penyogokan kepada pihak Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 25(1) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 25(2) Akta yang sama. [3] Both the accused claimed trial for the charges, and a joint trial was then conducted. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the Court found that the prosecution had made out prima facie cases against the two accused. Thus, they were called upon to enter on their defences. [4] After considering all the evidence adduced at the close of the defence’s case, I found that the prosecution had proved the cases on the two charges against the two accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they were found guilty and convicted of the charges against them. [5] After considering the submissions, both the accused were sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment each, to commence on the date of the sentences. [6] In the absence of any special or exceptional circumstances, their application for a stay of execution against the sentences was denied. 4 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [7] Being dissatisfied with the convictions and sentences, the two accused are now appealing to the High Court. Prosecution’s case [8] To prove its case, the prosecution called ten witnesses. (i) The case for the first accused [9] In 2019, the first accused worked as a Penolong Pegawai Pendidikan Daerah Pendidikan Islam at the Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah (PPD) Tangkak, Johor. He had worked at the PPD since 2015. [10] PW1 worked with the first accused at the PPD Tangkak as a Pembantu Tadbir Kewangan, or a Financial Clerk. She was involved in preparing procurement documents under the PPD. Any Ketua Aktiviti in the PPD could apply to conduct a certain programme or activity, provided there were financial allocations. [11] It was PW1’s task to prepare all necessary documents with the required particulars and approvals, including through the computer 5 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal system, so that the programme could be approved with the financial allocations. [12] The first accused applied to conduct a programme called Program Kecemerlangan SPM Mata Pelajaran Pendidikan Islam (Tasawur Islam) Sekolah-Sekolah Menengah Daerah Tangkak Tahun 2019 (hereinafter, Tasawur). The programme was indicated in the charge against him. After the necessary processes and documents were completed by PW1, Duha I Enterprise (Duha) was appointed as the supplier to provide food and drinks for the Tasawur. Subsequently, an amount of RM4952.06 was transferred to Duha’s bank account as payment for the services rendered. [13] PW7, Duha’s owner, then withdrew RM4,500.00 from the bank account and gave it to PW2, PW1’s husband, who later gave it to her. Afterwards, PW1 handed over the RM4,500.00 to the first accused at his office in the PPD. [14] The first accused knew that the PPD did not conduct the Tasawur programme for which he applied on 14.10.2019 and 15.10.2019. He also knew that Duha did not provide food or drinks, and that the documents prepared by PW1 were for a false claim. 6 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (ii) The case for the second accused [15] The second accused also worked at the PPD since 2017. He was the Penolong Pegawai Pendidikan Daerah Menengah dan Tingkatan 6. He also worked with PW1 at the PPD. [16] The second accused applied to conduct a programme called Bengkel Kerja Pengurusan Strategik PPD Tangkak (hereinafter, Bengkel) to be held in Tangkak, Johor. The programme’s name was also stated in the indictment against him. He instructed PW1 to prepare all the required documents for approvals, which she did. [17] The company Duha was again awarded the contract to provide food and drinks for the Bengkel. Later, an amount of RM1,666.56 was transferred into Duha’s bank account as payment for the purported food and drinks for the Bengkel. [18] Afterwards, PW7, the company’s owner, took out RM1,500.00 from the bank account. He gave the money to PW1’s husband, PW2, who later gave it to PW1. Soon after, PW1 gave the RM1,500.00 to the second accused at his office in the PPD. 7 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [19] The second accused knew that the PPD did not conduct the Bengkel he applied for in Tangkak, Johor and that Duha did not provide food or drinks. He further knew that the documents prepared by PW1 were for a false claim. Discussion and analysis [20] Both the accused were indicted under section 25(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (the Act), punishable under section 25(2) of the same Act, which provides: 25. (1) Any person to whom any gratification is given, promised, or offered, in contravention of any provision of this Act shall report such gift, promise or offer together with the name, if known, of the person who gave, promised or offered such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Commission or police officer. (2) Any person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both. (3) ...................................................... 8 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (4) ....................................................... [Emphasis added] [21] For the first accused, the prosecution had to establish three ingredients of the offence for a prima facie case against him. They were: (a) that the first accused was given a gratification amounting to RM4,500.00 (b) that the gratification given was in contravention of any provision of the Act; and (c) that the first accused did not report such gift together with the name of the person who gave such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Commission or police officer. [22] For the second accused, the prosecution also needed to establish three ingredients of the offence for a prima facie case against him, namely: (a) that the second accused was given a gratification amounting to RM1,500.00 9 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (b) that the gratification given was in contravention of any provision of the Act; and (c) that the second accused did not report such gift together with the name of the person who gave such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Commission or police officer. The first accused (i) that the first accused was given a gratification amounting to RM4,500.00 [23] Money is a form of gratification according to section 3 of the Act, which provides: gratification” means – (a) money, donation, gift, loan, fee, reward, valuable security, property or interest in property being property of any description whether movable or immovable, financial benefit, or any other similar advantage; ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ 10 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [Emphasis added] [24] The shoulder note to section 25(1) of the Act clearly summarised the subject matter of the provision, namely the duty to report a bribery transaction. Further, gratification envisaged in the section must be in contravention of any provision of the Act, such as if the money originated from a false claim. Therefore, in my view, gratification is also concerned with benefits corruptly obtained. [25] I proceed with the evidence of PW1, the Pembantu Tadbir Kewangan for the PPD. She testified that the first accused applied for the Tasawur programme through P1, in which he signed the document. Following P1, PW1 prepared the remaining documents, including P2 through P10. The programme was supposed to be conducted for two days in Tangkak, Johor, on 14.10.2019 and 15.10.2019, as shown in P2, P3, P4, P8 and P10. She further obtained the necessary signatures and approvals from other officers in the PPD. She even had Duha’s company name stamp readily available. The purpose was to make it convenient for her to sign and stamp for Duha and falsely represent the company as the supplier. This could be seen in the documents of P6 and P10, which were made for the company. On her own, she chose and appointed Duha as the supplier. 11 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [26] Further, she prepared P22, which was the Pesanan Kerajaan, or the authorisation to procure for the programme. Afterwards, the payment to cover the programme was approved, and the Arahan Pembayaran, or the authorisation to pay, P9, was issued. Based on P9, an amount of RM4,952.06 was required to be paid to Duha for supposedly supplying the food and drinks for the programme. The amount was transferred to Duha’s bank account on 12.11.2019, and this was reflected in P32, the bank’s statement, on page three. [27] Next, PW7 was the owner of Duha. One of the company’s businesses was to provide procurement services to a government department. The company also had a financial license. PW7 testified that he had known PW1 and her husband, PW2, since 2005. According to PW7, PW1 told him that she would use Duha’s license to obtain supply work from the PPD. PW7 said he himself had never applied for any work from the PPD. As for P6 and P10 regarding Duha, he said he did not prepare the documents, and the signatures on them were not his. He also said that under the arrangement between PW1 and him, he would be given 10% of the payment awarded to Duha. [28] After RM4,952.06 was transferred into his company’s account on 12.11.2029, PW7 took out RM4,500.00 from the amount on 13.11.2019. The money withdrawn was also shown in P32. Then PW7 went to see PW2, PW1’s husband. He gave the money to PW2 for him to give to PW1. 12 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [29] PW2’s evidence supported PW7’s testimony. He and his wife had known PW7 for some time. He said he received the money in an envelope from PW7. He did not know the amount, and he then merely gave the money to PW1. That PW7 withdrew the money, gave it to PW2, and later it was given to PW1 was not disputed by the first accused at all. This could be seen in PW1’s cross-examination, where the notes of evidence read: PB : Setuju dengan saya wang yang dikeluarkan oleh pembekal dalam kes yang kita bicarakan ini diserahkan kepada suami awak bernama Herman bin Mokti setelah dia ambil 10%? SP1 : Ya. PB : Dan saya cadangkan suami awak akan terima wang tersebut daripada Abdul Rahman dan serahkan kepada awak? SP1 : Ya. [30] After PW1 received the RM4,500.00 from her husband, she gave the money to the first accused in his office at the PPD. She said that the first accused knew that the Tasawur programme he applied for was not conducted and that no food or drinks were provided. The first accused 13 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal further knew that the documents were fabricated for the programme so that a financial claim could be made. [31] During her cross-examination, the defence challenged her by arguing that no money was given to the first accused. It was also put to her that the first accused did not instruct her to prepare P1 or the other documents. She disagreed with both suggestions. [32] It was trite that suggestions or questions in cross-examination are not evidence. They only showed the stand taken by the accused or indicative of the case put forward. The accused would have to raise the challenges by way of suggestions; otherwise, the evidence adduced would be deemed admitted by him. However, they cannot be substituted for evidence if the suggestion is repudiated or disagreed with by a witness such as PW1 in the instant case: Emperor v. Karimuddi AIR 1932 Cal 373; Public Prosecutor v. Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No.3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1. The suggestion does not prove anything and will remain nothing unless agreed to or admitted by a witness. Since PW1 disagreed with the suggestions put to her, they could not be used to absolve the first accused because they were not evidence. [33] I had thoroughly evaluated the evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW7 in its entirety and had the advantage of hearing and seeing them testify. The 14 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal witnesses clearly described the mechanism of the corrupt transaction. They were steadfast in their testimonies and unshaken during cross- examinations. There was nothing to suggest they had any discernible motive to implicate or frame the first accused. In any event, it was never put to any of them that they had an axe to grind, were out to fix him or had anything to gain by lying. I found them to be credible and reliable witnesses. I accepted and believed the evidence adduced by them. [34] Further, the first accused failed to raise any reasonable doubt in their evidence. The doubt must be based on evidence or the lack of evidence, and not merely on speculation or imagination. I found the witnesses’ evidence was compelling and established that the gratification was given to the accused. [35] In addition, the probabilities of the case are important to consider when assessing witness credibility. To my mind, it was inherently improbable that the witnesses were not telling the truth. It was not improbable at all that the first accused was in cahoots with PW1 to obtain the false claim. The first accused applied for the programme to be conducted, and PW1 was the financial clerk who was responsible for processing the application. They needed each other to get the money. As mentioned, PW1 also kept Duha’s company name stamp in her possession to facilitate her plot without having to go to PW7. 15 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [36] Then another piece of additional evidence was adduced by PW7, whose credibility and truthfulness were not contested or disputed by the first accused at all. PW7’s evidence was consistent with PW1’s testimony regarding the false claim. In fact, during his cross- examination, PW7 admitted that it was PW1 who used the documents for Duha, together with the company’s particulars, to apply for the programme. The notes of evidence showed: PB : Semua dokumen dan juga butiran e-Perolehan dah serahkan pada Siti Aminah, setuju? SP7 : Ya, saya dah bagi pada dia. PB : Siti Aminah inilah yang gunakan semua dokumen dan maklumat e-Perolehan ini untuk Duha I, betul? SP : Betul. [37] Thereafter, PW1 decided to testify against the first accused and the modus operandi of the false claim was exposed. Thus, I found that the factual matrix of the case, as testified to by the witnesses, was not inherently improbable. [38] In Public Prosecutor v. Mohd Bandar Shah bin Nordin & Anor [2008] 4 MLJ 556, the Court of Appeal opined: 16 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal If a witness’s evidence is improbable, this would be a good reason for rejecting his evidence or according it very little weight. By the same token, where the evidence of a witness accords with the probabilities of a case, it would be a serious misdirection on the part of the trial court to give it little or no weight on grounds of credibility. [Emphasis added] [39] The Federal Court in Md Zainudin Raujan v. PP [2013] 4 CLJ 21 opined: It is trite that the inherent probability or improbability of a fact in issue must be the prime consideration in deciding whether a witness is credible or not. It is the duty of the court to sieve the evidence and to ascertain what are the parts of the evidence tending to incriminate the accused which he accepted. [Emphasis added] [40] The first accused did not dispute the fact that the Tasawur programme was not conducted. This strengthened the prosecution’s case that the money from the application he made and was processed by PW1 was obtained through a false claim. Given that the money was corruptly 17 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal obtained, there was no doubt in my mind that PW1 gave him gratification. [41] As I had discussed and found, PW1 colluded with the first accused to obtain the false claim. She later gave the bulk of the money to the accused. In such a situation, PW1 is typically regarded as an accomplice. However, PW1 could not be considered as such in the instant case. It was due to section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Act and based on the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, i.e. a specific law prevails over a general law. The said section provides that: 52. (1) Notwithstanding any written law or rule of law to the contrary, in any proceedings against any person for an offence under this Act – (a) no witness shall be regarded as an accomplice by reason only of such witness having – (i) .................... (ii) ................... (iii) been in any manner concerned in the commission of such offence or having knowledge of the commission of the offence. 18 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [Emphasis added] [42] Even if PW1 was an accomplice, her evidence was corroborated by that of PW2 and PW7, together with the documents adduced by the prosecution (see section 52(2) of the Act). Similarly, the roles played by PW2 and PW7, in the ordinary sense, placed them as accomplices. However, based on the clear statutory provision that was cited, they were not accomplices. Further, the evidence adduced by them and by PW1 corroborated each other. [43] Thus, I found that the prosecution had proved the first ingredient of the offence against the first accused that he was given a gratification amounting to RM4,500.00. (ii) that the gratification given was in contravention of any provision of the Act; [44] In my view, the gratification that was obtained by the first accused was in contravention of section 18 of the Act, which provides: 18. Any person commits an offence if he gives to an agent, or being an agent he uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the 19 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal principal is interested, and which he has reason to believe contains any statement which is false or erroneous of defective in any material particular, and is intended to mislead the principal. [Emphasis added] [45] I accepted the evidence that PW1, as an agent, intentionally used documents such as P1, P6, and P10 to deceive her principal, of which her principal was interested. She also knew that the statements in the documents she prepared were false because the PPD would not conduct the programme. What she did was intended to mislead her principal, the PPD, into obtaining money through a false claim. [46] In addition, PW1 was an agent based on the interpretation of section 3 of the Act, which stipulates: “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. 20 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [47] Section 3 of the Act also clarified that “public body” includes the Government of Malaysia, whereas “officer of a public body” means any person who is a member, an officer, an employee or a servant of a public body etc. In addition, section 3 also provides that “principal” includes any employer, any beneficiary under a trust, any person beneficially interested in the estate of a deceased person, the estate of a deceased person, and, in the case of any person serving in or under a public body, the public body. [48] Based on the factual matrix, I was satisfied to find that the gratification given to the first accused was from the false claim, which was in contravention of section 18 of the Act. Thus, the prosecution had proved the second ingredient of the offence against the first accused. (iii) that the first accused did not report such gift together with the name of the person who gave such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Commission or police officer [49] The first accused did not put in any challenge to claim that he had reported the gratification to the authorities. Since the prosecution had proved the gratification was given to him and that it was in contravention of the Act, the first accused must report it. Further, based 21 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal on her investigation, the Investigation Officer (PW10) found that the first accused did not make any such report. [50] Therefore, I found that the prosecution had proved the final and last ingredient of the offence against the first accused. The second accused (i) that the second accused was given a gratification amounting to RM1,500.00 [51] Against the second accused, PW1 testified that the second accused applied for the Bengkel to be conducted through P24. Subsequently, PW1 prepared the remaining documents and obtained the necessary signatures and approvals. She further signed and stamped the documents for Duha, such as P14 and P15, to ensure the company would be appointed as the supplier of food and drinks for the Bengkel. The programme was supposed to be conducted in Tangkak, Johor, for three days from 12.11.2019 to 14.11.2019, as stated in P11, P12, P13, P14 and P18. [52] She further prepared P20, which was the Pesanan Kerajaan to procure the programme. Thereafter, the payment for the food and drinks was 22 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal approved, and the Arahan Pembayaran, P19(1-2), was issued. Based on P19, an amount of RM1,666.56 was paid to Duha for allegedly catering for the programme. The amount was transferred to Duha’s bank account, P32, on 27.11.2019. [53] PW7 testified that he never applied for any work from the PPD, including for the Bengkel. PW1 told him that she would use Duha’s license to apply for work. According to the arrangement between PW1 and him, he would receive 10% of the payment awarded to Duha. Furthermore, P14 and P15 were not prepared by him. [54] After RM1,666.56 was transferred into his company’s account on 27.11.2019, PW7 withdrew RM1,500.00 from the amount on 29.11.2019. Then he met PW2. He gave the money to PW2 for him to give to PW1. PW2 received the money in an envelope, and he gave it to his wife, PW1. The second accused did not dispute that PW7 withdrew the money from his account and gave it to PW2, who later gave it to PW1. This could be seen in PW1’s cross-examination, where the notes of evidence read: PB : Setuju dengan saya wang yang dikeluarkan oleh pembekal dalam kes yang kita bicarakan ini diserahkan kepada suami awak bernama Herman bin Mokti setelah dia ambil 10%? 23 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal SP1 : Ya. PB : Dan saya cadangkan suami awak akan terima wang tersebut daripada Abdul Rahman dan serahkan kepada awak? SP1 : Ya. [55] After PW1 received the RM1,666.56 from her husband, she gave the money to the second accused in his office at the PPD. She testified that the second accused knew that the Bengkel was not conducted and that no food or drinks were provided. The second accused also knew that the documents were fabricated for the programme so that a financial claim could be made. [56] During her cross-examination, the defence challenged her by suggesting that no money was given to the second accused. It was also put to her that the second accused did not instruct her to prepare the remaining documents. She disagreed with both suggestions. [57] I had evaluated the evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW7 in its entirety and had the advantage of hearing and seeing them testify. They clearly narrated the process of the corrupt transaction. They were steadfast in 24 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal their testimonies and unshaken during the cross-examinations. As with the case against the first accused, there was no evidence that they had any reason to falsely implicate or frame the second accused. Further, the second accused never alleged that they had any grievance against him or that they were out to implicate him. In the circumstances, I found them to be credible and reliable witnesses. Therefore, I accepted and believed the evidence adduced by them. [58] As in the case against the first accused, I saw no reason to disbelieve the witnesses in the absence of any contradiction or improbability. I found that the evidence adduced by the three witnesses accorded with the probabilities of the case against the second accused. The facts and the circumstances as narrated by them were not inherently improbable at all based on the mode of operation to obtain the false claim – Public Prosecutor v. Mohd Bandar Shah bin Nordin (supra); Md Zainudin Rajan v. PP (supra). [59] There was no dispute that the Bengkel was not conducted. This supported the prosecution’s case that the money from the application he made and was processed by PW1 was obtained through a false claim. Since the money was obtained corruptly, I found that the second accused was indeed given gratification by PW1. 25 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [60] As I had discussed and found earlier, PW1 was not an accomplice under the Act. And even if she was an accomplice, her evidence was corroborated by that of PW2 and PW7, coupled with the documents adduced by the prosecution. The same goes for my previous arguments concerning PW2 and PW7. [61] Therefore, I found that the prosecution had proved the first ingredient of the offence against the second accused. (iv) that the gratification given was in contravention of any provision of the Act; [62] As with the case against the first accused, the gratification that was obtained by the second accused was in contravention of section 18 of the Act, which provides: 18. Any person commits an offence if he gives to an agent, or being an agent he uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, and which he has reason to believe contains any statement which is false or erroneous of defective in any material particular, and is intended to mislead the principal. 26 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [Emphasis added] [63] I accepted the evidence that PW1, as an agent, intentionally used documents such as P14, P15, and P24 to deceive her principal, the PPD, of which the PPD was interested. She also knew that the statements in the documents she prepared were false because the PPD would not conduct the programme. What she did was intended to mislead her principal into obtaining money from the false claim. [64] In addition, PW1 was an agent based on the interpretation of section 3 of the Act, which stipulates: “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. [65] Section 3 of the Act also clarified that “public body” includes the Government of Malaysia, whereas “officer of a public body” means any person who is a member, an officer, an employee or a servant of a public body etc. 27 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Additionally, section 3 also provides that “principal” includes any employer, any beneficiary under a trust, any person beneficially interested in the estate of a deceased person, the estate of a deceased person, and, in the case of any person serving in or under a public body, the public body. [66] Thus, I was satisfied to find that the gratification given to the second accused was derived from the false claim. It certainly was in contravention of the Act. The prosecution had proved the second ingredient of the offence against the second accused. (ii) that the second accused did not report such gift together with the name of the person who gave such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the Commission or police officer [67] The second accused did not raise any challenge that he had reported the gratification given to him by PW1 to the authorities. Since the prosecution had proved the gratification was given to him and that it was in contravention of the Act, it was incumbent on him to report it. Further, based on her investigation, the Investigation Officer (PW10) found that no such report was made. 28 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [68] Therefore, I found that the prosecution had proved the final and last ingredient of the offence against the second accused. Conclusion at the close of the prosecution’s case [69] I carefully scrutinised and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence. This Court found the prosecution had adduced credible evidence to prove all the ingredients of the offence against both the accused. Credible evidence is evidence that has been filtered and has gone through the process of evaluation, and any unsafe evidence should be rejected: PP v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209. [70] Both the accused failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case: Public Prosecutor v. Saimin & Anor [1971] CLJU 115 [71] I was further guided by the decision of Abdul Rahman bin Sebli JCA (as he then was) in Wen Wuzhuang v. PP [2018] 1 LNS 1676. In paragraph 43, His Lordship said: 29 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Any finding of fact must be based on evidence and nothing else and this applies even where the burden is merely to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. The court does not deal in conjecture or speculation and there are good grounds for this which we need not elaborate on. [Emphasis added] [72] Thus, a prima facie case had been made out against both the accused on the offence charged, and they must be called upon to enter on their defence: section 173(h)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). A prima facie case is where the prosecution had adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence, which, if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction: section 173(h)(iii) of the CPC. This Court had also explained the three options available to both the accused for defending themselves. [73] I had also subjected the whole evidence in this case to a maximum evaluation, which was explained by the Federal Court decision in Magendran Mohan v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 805: [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 scrutinised properly and not perfunctorily, cursorily or superficially. If the evaluation of the evidence results 30 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal in doubts in the prosecution’s case, then a prima facie case has not been made out. The defence ought not be called merely to clear or clarify such doubts. [74] The totality of the evidence against both the accused was sufficient for the defence to be called, and this Court was prepared to convict them on the charges if they had elected to remain silent: Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85; PP v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457. The defence’s case [75] Both the accused elected to give sworn evidence from the witness’s box. They called four other witnesses to testify. All of them elected to testify on oath as well. [76] I considered and tested the evidence from all of them against the ingredients of the offence that the prosecution had established. There was no requirement to revisit the prosecution’s case on the findings. This was because I had made a maximum evaluation of the evidence and found the witnesses credible and reliable. As such, it is wrong in law to revisit the findings. 31 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [77] The Federal Court in Duis Akim & Ors v. PP [2013] 9 CLJ 692 ruled that: We note that when assessing the defence the learned trial judge surprisingly revisited his earlier findings upon which he called for the defence. Such approach is quite contrary to the principle of maximum evaluation of the evidence adduced at the close of the prosecution’s case. Indeed in his judgment the learned trial judge made it very clear that he had conducted a maximum evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before calling for the defence. [Emphasis added] [78] Therefore, this Court was only required to test and compare the evidence of both the accused at this stage with the evidence of the prima facie case established by the prosecution. And to consider and decide whether both the accused were able to raise any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case at this stage as well. Having considered all the evidence in the trial, the Court must decide whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on the charges. 32 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Evidence by the first accused (DW1) [79] The first accused testified that he was unaware of the Tasawur programme on 14.10.2019 and 15.10.2019, which was alleged against him. He also denied having conducted the programme. [80] In addition, he said he did not sign the documents bearing his signature. They were P1, the application to conduct the programme or the Nota Minta; P5, the Penilaian Prestasi Pembekal; and P22, the Pesanan Kerajaan. These documents were part of the documents applying for programme approval. [81] The first accused had earlier challenged PW1 when she testified about his signature. He claimed that the signature was falsified. However, PW1 disagreed with the suggestion. Aside from that, PW5, who was the Pegawai Pendidikan Daerah Tangkak and PW8, the Penolong Akauntan at the PPD, also testified that the first accused had signed P1. I found that the two witnesses were credible and truthful. In addition, no suggestion was put forward nor was any evidence adduced that they were lying to implicate the first accused. Further, the first accused failed to raise any reasonable doubt in their testimonies. Therefore, I had accepted and believed their evidence, given that it was consistent and cogent under the circumstances laid down by the prosecution. 33 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [82] The first accused denied signing P1, claiming he was on leave. He said he did not sign P5 because he was away from the office. It was the same with P22, since he said he was not in the office and was elsewhere. [83] The allegation by the first accused that someone had falsified his signature was certainly a very serious matter. If his claim was not proven, then the first accused would be culpable. Therefore, the appropriate step for him was to lodge an immediate police report and to inform the relevant authorities after discovering that the signatures were not his. [84] During his cross-examination, the first accused initially agreed with the suggestion that he had not filed any police report regarding the three signatures in P1, P5 and P22. Afterwards, he turned around and said he had made police reports about the matter. Twice at the Tangkak District Police Headquarters on 8.12.2022 and 20.1.2023. However, he failed to adduce the reports during the trial, apart from merely stating that he had given them to his Counsel. If it was true that the reports were made, then there was no reason not to present them in Court. To my mind, the failure to do so was adverse to his defence because it affected his credibility. I could not simply accept his bare assertion without more. After all, he had contradicted himself and failed to explain the failure to produce the reports in Court properly. 34 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [85] Apart from that, the first accused admitted in his cross-examination that he failed to inform the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) of the alleged false signatures when his statements were recorded during the investigation. He said he had forgotten to inform the MACC. In my view, this explanation was unreasonable and could not be accepted or believed. Further, it was inconsistent with his proclamation of innocence. I did not think someone under investigation could inadvertently forget to disclose such crucial information to absolve himself from the involvement in the false claim. If it were true that those signatures were falsified and not his, he would promptly have informed the MACC. Otherwise, he would surely have known that he could be implicated for signing those signatures. [86] The first accused produced his defence statement made under section 62 of the Act, and this Court agreed to accept it as part of his evidence. It was marked as D44(a-c). It was clear to me that the defence statement sought to support his testimony that he did not know about the Tasawur programme. Further, to claim that his signatures were also falsified. At paragraph 10 of the defence statement, he claimed that the statements he gave to the MACC were not accurate because he was in detention and was unable to produce any reference material. [87] In my view, the contentions contained in his defence statements were at best consistent with what he testified earlier to defend himself. They were not in any way the absolute truth of their contents without being 35 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tested in a trial. The defence statements failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, in light of the reasons I had discussed and the findings made. Further, the defence statement was only a part of the pre-trial disclosure process under the Act after the prosecution had delivered its documents pursuant to section 51A of the CPC. The statement, per se, could not exculpate the first accused because it is not a magic shield that displaces the prima facie case the prosecution had established. [88] The first accused also applied to adduce his Notice of Alibi purportedly under section 402A of the CPC. He said he gave the notice to the prosecution on 29.10.2023. The prosecution did not object, and the notice was marked D45. [89] The current section 402A of the CPC came into effect on 1.6.2012 through the Amendment Act A1422/2012. It provides: (1) The court shall, at the time the accused is being charged, inform the accused as to his right to put forward a defence of alibi. (2) Where the accused seeks to put forward a defence of alibi, he shall put forward a notice of his alibi during the case management process. 36 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), where the accused has not put a notice of his alibi during the case management process, he may adduce evidence in support of an alibi at any time during the trial subject to the following conditions: (a) the accused has given notice of the alibi to the Public Prosecutor; and (b) the Public Prosecutor is given a reasonable time to investigate the alibi before such evidence can be adduced. (4) The notice required under this section shall include particulars of the place where the accused claims to have been at the time of the commission of the offence with which he is charged, together with the names and addresses of any witnesses whom he intends to call for the purpose of establishing his alibi. [Emphasis added] [90] Section 402A was enacted to prevent an accused from fabricating evidence of an alibi. The other purpose was to enable an investigation to be conducted within a reasonable time to ascertain the validity of such a defence. In essence, the alibi defence is that the accused was elsewhere at the time and place of the offence committed. With this defence, all the accused needed to do was raise a reasonable doubt that he was the person present at the place where the crime was 37 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal committed. It was the usual evidential burden: Yau Heng Fang v. PP [1985] CLJ Rep 350 (SC); Illian & Anor v. PP [1988] CLJU 139 (SC). [91] In Arshad Masdin v.Public Prosecutor [2025] CLJU 460, Azmi bin Ariffin JCA (as he then was) held that: [60] It is trite that once an appellant pleads an alibi, he does not assume the burden to prove it is true. The onus is on the prosecution to prove by evidence that the alibi is false and to place the appellant squarely at the scene of the crime. The evidence of his alibi need only raise a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. The alibi of the appellant does not have to be corroborated by independent evidence in order to raise a defence (see the Federal Court decision in Duis Akim & Anor v. PP [2013] 9 CLJ 692). [Emphasis added] [92] In Duis Akim & Anor (supra), the Federal Court held that: [82] However, alibi could not prevail over the positive identification of an accused person especially so in the face of categorical statements coming from credible witnesses who had no ill motives in testifying. 38 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [83] Thus, in Mutachi Stephen v. Uganda ([2003] UGCA 9), the accused said that on the night the offence took place he was already asleep with his wife. However, there was a witness who had positively identified him. As such his alibi collapsed. He has been squarely put at the scene of crime. [Emphasis added] [93] In my view, D45 was not a proper notice and defective in law due to the non-compliance with subsection (4) of the said section 402A. D45 was something else. As envisaged under subsection (4), the document failed to state the particulars of the place where the first accused claimed to have been at the time of the commission of the offence with which he was charged, together with the names and addresses of any witnesses he intended to call to establish his alibi. It is trite that the requirements of section 402A are mandatory. The non-compliance occasioned evidence in support of the alibi inadmissible: Hussin Sillit v. Public Prosecutor [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 128; Amin Hatai v. PP [2017] 1 LNS 87. [94] D45 merely contained denials by the first accused regarding the Tasawur programme and his signatures. He further claimed in the document that on 15.10.2019, he attended a Majlis Sambutan Maulidur Rasul. However, 15.10.2019 was not the date or the time of the commission of the offence as stated in the charge against him. The 39 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal indictment stated that in November 2019, he was given gratification, and that it had nothing to do with 15.10.2019. He failed to address the all-important issue of his whereabouts when the offence was committed. [95] In addition, the failure to disclose the names or addresses of any witnesses the first accused intended to call to establish his alibi had deprived the MACC of the ability to investigate and determine whether his alibi defence was valid. In any event, the prosecution had proved that PW1 gave gratification to the first accused at the PPD. Thus, the first accused had been squarely put at the scene of the crime. As such, whatever remained of his alibi had collapsed. At the end of it all, D45 also failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case regarding the accused’s presence at the place where the crime was committed. [96] To conclude, the first accused denied any wrongdoing. A denial without sufficient evidence to support failed to raise any reasonable doubt and to force out the prosecution’s case. Therefore, the term ‘bare denial’. And no weight could be given to bare denial against the prosecution’s evidence. A bare denial is no defence: Paramasivan & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor [1948] 1 LNS 90; PP v. Reza Mohd Shah Ahmad Shah [2002] 1 LNS 157; Losali v. PP [2012] 2 CLJ 178. 40 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [97] Nevertheless, the nature of an explanation is more important than any explanation. I was guided by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ong Hooi Beng & Ors v. PP [2015] 3 MLJ 812, in which Abdul Rahman Sebli JCA (as he then was) opined that: In our opinion whether or not a defence amounts to a mere denial is to be determined not by the fact it is coupled with an explanation but by the nature of the explanation. A denial may well be coupled with an explanation but if the explanation is merely to deflect the prosecution’s case evidence without answering the real questions in controversy to reasonably dislodge the prosecution evidence it remains a mere denial for what it is worth. [Emphasis added] [98] By the nature of the explanations given by the first accused, they did not answer the real issues in dispute. They merely sought to divert from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Their nature consisted only of bare denials and unanswered questions, and they failed to dislodge the prosecution’s case. Thus, I did not accept or believe his explanations, and the explanations did not raise in my mind any reasonable doubt as to his guilt: Mat v. PP [1963] 1 LNS 82. 41 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Evidence by the second accused (DW2) [99] The second accused said he was shocked when accused of receiving RM1,500.00 from PW1 regarding the Bengkel, as charged against him. He denied having any knowledge about the Bengkel and said he was not involved in preparing the documents for the false claim. He also denied receiving the money from PW1. [100] Moreover, he claimed that his signature had been forged on some of the documents prepared by PW1 for approval. The documents were P16, the Penilaian Prestasi Pembekal; P20, the Pesanan Kerajaan; and P24, the application to conduct the programme, or Nota Minta. [101] Regarding P16, PW6, the Pembantu Tadbir at the PPD, previously testified that the second accused had signed the document. PW6 said she gave the second accused a document to sign, and she actually saw him sign P16. This evidence was obtained during her cross- examination by the defence. She further disagreed with the defence’s suggestion that she did not give P16 for the accused to sign, and that his signature was forged. However, her testimony that she saw the second accused sign P16 was not challenged or disputed at all. Therefore, it was deemed admitted: Wong Swee Chin v. Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 LNS 138. 42 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [102] Given that he never contested that he signed P16 when he had the opportunity to do so with PW6, his claim that his signature was forged when asked to defend himself was also an afterthought and a recent invention: Megat Halim Megat Omar v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 154; DA Duncan v. Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 LNS 12. [103] Concerning P20, PW1, PW5, PW6, and PW8 testified that the second accused signed the document. PW6 also stated that she obtained his signature. All these witnesses were consistent in their evidence that the second accused signed P20. The second accused never alleged that they were lying or had any reason to implicate him. For what plausible motive would his department staff be out to get him? The second accused did not suggest anything, thereby negating any reason for the witnesses to implicate him. To my mind, it was also inherently improbable for the witnesses to conspire by lying so that he would be blamed for something he did not do. [104] Regarding P24, PW6 testified that she gave P24 to the second accused for him to sign. During her cross-examination, I found that he failed to challenge and suggested to her that she had never given him the document to sign. Thus, the failure of the second accused to do so rendered PW6’s evidence admissible: Wong Swee Chin v. Public Prosecutor (supra). 43 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [105] As alluded to, the Bengkel regarding the false claim was scheduled to be held from 12.11.2019 to 14.11.2019 in Tangkak, Johor. The second accused stated that he attended a programme in Melaka with PW5 from 13.11.2019 until 14.11.2019. Therefore, he claimed that it would not be clever of him to make the false claim because the dates for the two programmes were the same. Further, PW5, his boss, would have known that he made the false claim. [106] In my view, the issue here was not whether the second accused was being clever, but whether he had the opportunity to create the false claim together with PW1. It was also not that he would have done this or that in a given situation, especially after being found answerable for an incriminating act. On the evidence adduced, I found that he had applied for the Bengkel with the collusion of PW1. [107] Further, PW1 was patently clear in her evidence that the second accused instructed her to fabricate the documents for the false claim. He was complicit with her. This is evident in paragraph 47 of her written statement (PSSP1). Despite such incriminating piece of evidence, I found that he failed to challenge or contest it when PW1 testified during the trial. Why was that so? No explanation was proffered. One would have expected him to vehemently deny such instruction to fabricate the documents. Neglecting to challenge the evidence meant that it could no longer be disputed. In an adversarial legal system, the requirement to contest was not just a technical rule of evidence but an 44 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal essential rule of justice. As opined in A.E.G Carapiet v. Derdarian [1961] Cal 359: “Wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross- examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It is wrong to think that this is merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice”. [Emphasis added] [108] As with the first accused, the second accused adduced his defence statement pursuant to section 62 of the Act. It was marked as D46(1- 3). It contained his denials on the charge against him and was similar to what was adduced by the first accused. I had also considered the statement with the rest of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. My opinion was the same as that previously discussed regarding the defence statement of the first accused. As such, I found that the defence statement of the second accused failed to raise any reasonable doubt to displace the prima facie case established by the prosecution. [109] The second accused further added a Notice of Alibi under section 402A of the CPC, which was served to the prosecution on 29.10.2019. The 45 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal prosecution chose not to object, and the notice was marked as D47(1- 2). Just like with the previous notice by the first accused, I found that D47 was not a proper notice and defective in law because it failed to comply with subsection (4) of section 402A. The document failed to state the particulars of the place where the first accused claimed to have been at the time of the commission of the offence with which he was charged, together with the names and addresses of any witnesses he intended to call to establish his alibi. The non-compliance rendered any evidence adduced in support inadmissible. [110] Notwithstanding, I had deliberated further on the content. D47 contained the second accused’s denials that he signed the documents concerning the false claim. But these denials had no place in a notice of alibi. He also claimed that he was attending a programme in Melaka on 13.11.2019 and 14.11.2019. Nevertheless, the said two dates could not exculpate him from the commission of the offence. This was because the charge against him concerned the gratification given between the end of November 2019 and the middle of December 2019, not in the middle of November 2019. Thus, his alibi was wrongly premised on an irrelevant and different time frame. [111] Aside from that, D47 asserted the names of PW3 and PW5, whom the second accused claimed could confirm his attendance in the programme in Melaka. However, it mattered not for the programme in Melaka. The assertion was misplaced as the charge against him did 46 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal not involve the programme in Melaka. He had to establish his alibi that he was not at the place where the crime was committed. The prosecution had established that the gratification was given to him by PW1 at his office in PPD, Tangkak, and not during the programme in Melaka. Thus, the second accused was directly placed where the crime was committed. In the circumstances, an alibi notice could not avail him. In any case, it was a non-starter from the start. [112] The second accused also produced a police report he had filed on 8.12.2022. It was marked as D48, which was Tangkak Report 5972/22. In the report, the accused stated that it was impossible for him to sign any document on 14.11.2019, as he was attending a programme in Melaka on that date. He believed his signature had been falsified after the MACC showed it to him. [113] It appeared to me that D48 was a first information report pursuant to section 107 of the CPC. It was unclear for what purpose the report was adduced, particularly on the significance of 14.11.2019 stated therein. Moreover, the second accused’s written submission failed to state any arguments in support of it. It is well-settled that a first information report is not substantive evidence of its content, and is inadmissible for the purpose of proving that the facts stated in it are correct: Tan Cheng Kooi & Anor v. PP [1972] 2 MLJ 115 at page 118. 47 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [114] This meant that the report itself could not be used to prove that what was written in it was true. A report is just a report. More importantly, the police had to investigate the information provided by the complainant. Significantly, what was the conclusion based on the investigation? I found that no such result was produced. The second accused failed to adduce the outcome, and an Investigation Officer was not called to testify in Court. Therefore, the police report could not be accepted as exculpatory evidence. [115] To conclude, I did not accept or believe his explanations, and the explanations did not raise in my mind any reasonable doubt as to his guilt: Mat v. PP (supra). Evidence by DW3 [116] DW3 was the Pembantu Akauntan Kanan at the PPD, Tangkak. He worked under PW8. PW1 and another person named Amirunizam assisted both of them. According to him, he lodged a report with the MACC regarding PW1’s misconduct at the workplace. [117] DW3 was sure that neither of the accused knew about the false claims and that they did not receive any gratification from PW1. This was because he thought that PW1 would certainly not wish others to know 48 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal about her misconduct in making false claims. This was what he said in his written statement (PSSD2) in paragraph 24: 24. Saya percaya Ustaz Abd Razak bin Mohd Darom dan Cikgu Muhammad Faizal bin Abd. Razak tidak tahu langsung tentang tuntutan program yang tidak wujud dan mereka tidak menerima apa-apa bayaran suapan dari Siti Aminah, kerana sudah pasti Siti Aminah tidak mahu melibatkan orang lain yang akan mengetahui perbuatan salah lakunya membuat tuntutan- tuntutan palsu. [118] It was apparent that DW3’s impression that both the accused were innocent was premised on the assumption that PW1 would not want others to know that she was falsifying the claims. I found that was the only reason. However, the prosecution had established its case premised on the evidence that both the accused were complicit with PW1.They had instructed her and signed some of the documents involved. To my mind, it was insufficient for both the accused to raise a reasonable doubt merely based on what DW3 imagined to be. As elucidated in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Saimin & Ors (supra): “It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt...Or sometimes said, it must be a doubt so solemn and substantial as to produce in the minds or jurors some uncertainty as to the verdict to be given. A 49 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal reasonable doubt must be a doubt arising from the evidence or want of evidence and cannot be imaginary doubt or conjecture unrelated to evidence”. [Emphasis added] [119] Indeed, DW3 admitted that his notion of them was grounded merely on his supposition that they were not involved in the false claims, and that the claims concerned only PW1. He kept explaining and repeating that it was founded on an assumption, even after Counsel himself subjected it to re-examination. The notes of evidence read: PB : Tadi ada soalan daripada pihak pendakwaan mengatakan rujuk kepada pernyataan awak di para 16, pendakwaan mengatakan Siti Aminah mendapat arahan dan pegawai yang beri arahan adalah OKT1 dan OKT2 iaitu Abd Razak Md Darom dan juga Muhammad Faizal bin Abd Razak dan awak tidak setuju. Boleh jelaskan kenapa tidak setuju? DW3: Saya merasakan ini adalah kerja beliau sahaja, one woman show kerja seorang diri. [Emphasis added] Further, 50 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PB : Tadi pendakwaan ada mengatakan bahawa tandatangan pada dokumen merujuk kepada baucar ini adalah tandatangan OKT1 dan OKT2 sendiri dan awak tidak setuju. Awak nak jelaskan kenapa awak tidak setuju itu bukan tandatangan OKT1 dan OKT2? DW3: Kerana saya menganggap beliau buat kerja ini seorang diri, jika beliau meminta OKT1 dan OKT2 untuk tandatangan mereka, maksudnya perbuatan dia itu akan diketahui oleh orang lain. Pasal saya menganggap dia adalah one woman show lah. [Emphasis added] [120] Given that what DW3 envisioned was unsubstantiated, I did not accept that both the accused had raised any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. Evidence by DW4 [121] DW4 was the Pembantu Tadbir at the PPD, Tangkak. Between 1.2.2015 and 31.5.2019, she worked under the first accused’s supervision when he was the Unit Head. It was for almost four years. 51 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [122] She testified that the first accused could not give any instructions to PW1 because PW1 was working in a different sector, namely the financial sector. Apparently, this piece of evidence was to distance the first accused from any involvement in the wrongdoing committed by PW1. However, during PW1’s cross-examination previously, the first accused never suggested that he was unable to instruct her on anything because she was not working in the same sector as him. In my view, this was another hallmark of an afterthought and a recent invention. [123] It was plain that DW4 was called to adduce good character evidence regarding the first accused. She said that the first accused was a good person and a person of integrity, and that she had never seen anything wrong with him. Be that as it may, good character evidence, on its own, could not exonerate the accused. It could not, by itself, create a reasonable doubt where the prosecution’s case was otherwise established. Besides, DW4 could not vouch for certain that the first accused was not given gratification by PW1. In any event, DW4 was not privy to what had occurred between the first accused and PW1 regarding their involvement in the false claim. What DW4 testified to was just what she thought of him, and it by no means could exculpate him without anything else. [124] It was similar in weight to DW4’s testimony that she did not see the first accused being close to PW1, and that he never had any financial 52 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal dealings with PW1 involving cash. Thus, nothing turned in favour of the first accused. He failed to raise any reasonable doubt through the evidence adduced by DW4. Evidence by DW5 [125] DW5 was the Pembantu Tadbir Kewangan with PW1 at the PPD Tangkak. He was named by DW3 previously when he testified. PW8 headed the financial department, and her deputy was DW3. It was clear that DW5 was called to testify to adduce evidence of PW1’s wrongdoing regarding the two false claims. Further, to say that both the accused were not involved and that only PW1 was the culprit, as what DW3 said before. [126] DW5 said that PW1 made the claims solely, and the proceeds from the claims were not given to both the accused. His reason was this. He saw that PW1 was living a luxurious life, buying a car in cash, and liked to flaunt her spending. It must be noted that the allegation of living a lifestyle and spending was never put to PW1 during her testimony. Be that as it may, PW1 living the lifestyle appeared to be the only reason DW5 thought both the accused were not involved in the false claims. To my mind, the reason given without more was insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that both the accused were not culpable. In any event, DW5 did not claim that he was present on both occasions when 53 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PW1 said she gave the money to both the accused. Thus, he did not see the money change hands. [127] Further, DW5 said that PW1 had the skill to forge signatures. This was because he had seen PW1 falsify the signatures of PPD officers. However, DW5 did not say that he saw PW1 forge both the accused’s signatures. I was not prepared to speculate or hold that she had also forged both the accused’s signatures based on DW5’s sweeping claim. In any case, neither of the accused ever suggested to PW1 that she had the skill to forge signatures, including theirs, when she was cross- examined previously. [128] DW5 further said that after her wrongdoing was exposed, PW1 fabricated the story that she gave the money to both the accused so that more severe action would not be taken against her. I found that this was also an afterthought, as it had never been presented to PW1 as such before. Nonetheless, what DW5 said was not based on any evidence to substantiate his notion. What he said was undoubtedly his assumption, which could not constitute any reasonable doubt. Neither could it be accepted as credible exculpatory evidence. [129] Again, nothing turned for either accused, and I found that they failed to raise any reasonable doubt with DW5’s evidence. 54 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Evidence of DW6 [130] DW6 was the Timbalan Pegawai Pendidikan Daerah at the PPD, Tangkak. He was the deputy to PW5. At the time he testified in Court, he had already retired. [131] During his testimony, he was shown P17, which was the attendance list for the Bengkel that the PPD did not conduct. It concerned the charge against the second accused. At item 28, DW6’s name was listed alongside three signatures indicating that he had signed the list. However, DW6 said that they were not his. This meant they were made by someone else. [132] I found that his testimony was consistent with the prosecution’s case that the document was used in the false claim made by PW1 with the connivance of the second accused. Without their involvement, the false claim could not have come to fruition. Thus, in no way could this piece of evidence, on its own, be used to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case against the second accused. It was similar to DW6’s claim that he did not make any police report because he did not know about P17. He did not even know whether the Bengkel was held. 55 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [133] DW6 was also shown P19, which was the Arahan Pembayaran for the Bengkel payment. He denied he was the Penyedia as stated on the second page. This meant that the document was falsified and used to support the false claim. DW6 further claimed that to prepare P19, his token was used by someone else. He did not keep the token after using it and the finance unit kept it. As far as only P19 was concerned, I found that DW6’s evidence failed to raise any reasonable doubt. His evidence merely supported the prosecution’s contention that the document was used to make a false claim. [134] Finally, P33 was shown to DW6. It was a document titled “Pembelian Terus” regarding Duha, prepared by the PPD. He was referred to the double markings of HH in the document. He said that he did not sign anything in P33. Further, he agreed that the date of 26 November in the document was the same as demonstrated in P19. [135] That was, in essence, DW6’s evidence in his brief testimony. Insofar as P33 was concerned and DW6’s denial that he signed it, I could not see how DW6’s testimony had raised any reasonable doubt concerning the case against the second accused. It was obvious to me that if DW6’s signature was falsified, it only strengthened the prosecution’s case that the document was involved in the false claim for the Bengkel. As with the other two documents referred to previously, I found that P33 failed to exculpate the second accused. 56 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [136] Therefore, DW6’s testimony fared no better than the other witnesses’. It failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case against the second accused. Conclusion at the close of the defence’s case [137] I had carefully considered what both the accused testified in their defences, including the witnesses called. I juxtaposed the explanation given with the evidence presented by the prosecution. I failed to find anything in the defence’s evidence to displace the findings made at the close of the prosecution’s case. [138] I found that the defence’s case was riddled with bare denials, afterthoughts and assumptions. When considered in light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the defence put forth by both the accused failed to raise any reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case remained unrebutted. [139] The decision in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 347 explained what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is. It was held: That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable 57 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence ‘of course it is possible, but not in the least probable’, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice. [Emphasis added] [140] Irrespective of whether a Court is otherwise convinced in its own mind of the guilt or innocence of an accused, its decision must be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else: Sia Soon Suan v. Public Prosecutor [1966] 1 MLJ 116. [141] Having considered all the evidence adduced, it was my firm finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused: see section 173(m)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code. [142] Therefore, I found them guilty of the charges for which they were indicted. Accordingly, both the accused were convicted of the offences charged. 58 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The sentence [143] Section 25(2) of the Act reads: Any person who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both. [144] The provision imposes a severe penalty on those who commit offences under the Act. It depicts the Act’s intention to prevent and combat corruption through a special statute. Nevertheless, it is also important that any sentence passed by the Court must be in accordance with the law. A sentence, according to the law, must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section but must also be assessed and passed according to the established judicial principles: PP v. Jafa bin Daud [1981] 1 LNS 26 at page 2. [145] In mitigation by his Counsel, the first accused asked for a sentence of fine. He was a first offender and had served as a government servant, which was a Pegawai Pendidikan. He was suspended from his job after being charged in Court. He had four children between the ages of five and seventeen years old. One of them had cancer and was 59 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal undergoing treatment. The first accused’s wife also worked as a Pegawai Pendidikan. [146] The second accused also prayed for a sentence of fine. He worked as a Pegawai Pendidikan who had been suspended from the office. He had four children aged five to thirteen years old. All of them were still in school. They needed him to earn a living to support them. His wife was not working, and he was the sole breadwinner. [147] The prosecution submitted that the offences committed were serious and the public interest must override the interests of both the accused. The sentence should serve as a deterrent to others. Both the accused were supposed to set a good example for society, given that they were public servants. They should have considered the consequences of their actions for their families and careers. Therefore, the prosecution asked for a sentence of imprisonment. [148] Even though both the accused were found guilty after a full trial, their plea in mitigation must still be regarded. I had considered it alongside the public interest to strike a balance in determining the sentence. Having said that, no sentence could be assessed by a simple mathematical formula because various factors had to be considered: Mohamed Jusoh bin Abdullah and Another v. Public Prosecutor [1947] 1 LNS 73. 60 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [149] I had considered that they were found guilty after a full trial. Many witnesses had come to testify, which meant that the trial took a long time to conclude. If they had pleaded guilty, it would have saved a lot of time for everybody. Then they would have deserved a lesser sentence than the twelve months’ imprisonment. However, they chose to claim trial as was their right. Nonetheless, I had also factored in the fact that these were their first criminal convictions. [150] To my mind, they had committed serious offences. The offences were neither trivial nor peripheral. These offences were not merely failures to report something. They were failures to report bribes given to them, which constituted specific offences under the Act. As public servants in the teaching profession, they should have realised that what they did was most unbecoming and had far-reaching, damaging consequences. As such, in my view, the public interest must override the interest of both the accused, and a deterrent sentence must necessarily be imposed. [151] Thus, it was my considered opinion that the sentences against them were just and appropriate. The sentences were not manifestly excessive on the facts and the circumstances of the case. 61 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Dated on this day, 14th May 2026 -sgd- (DATUK AHMAD KAMAL ARIFIN BIN ISMAIL) Judge Sessions Court Johor Bahru For the prosecution : DPP Chan Lee Lee PO Fazal Lisam bin Abidin PO Ameera D’Aneez binti Mohd Shukari For the accused : MD Hazza bin Md Khalid Suraya Hani binti Abd Halim 62 S/N jcvFVY4kw0eJXI/1iSMtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal