ZULAZRI BIN IDRIS

ZULAZRI BIN IDRIS

The High Court held that the prosecution proved the ingredients of s.17(a) MACC Act and common intention under s.34 by circumstantial and eyewitness evidence; the statutory presumption under s.50 arose upon proof of gratification and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; credibility findings of the Sessions Court were not displaced on appeal; therefore conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Citation
WA-42(R)(A)-3-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Zulazri bin Idris; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
R
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Case Number
WA-42(R)(A)-3-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Bribery, Presumption of Corrupt Gratification (s.50 MACC Act), Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code), Charge Amendment, Sentence Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Anti‑corruption Law Evidence Criminal Procedure Bribery Presumption of Corrupt Gratification (s.50 MACC Act) Common Intention (s.34 Penal Code) Charge Amendment +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zulazri bin Idris

Appellant

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Hearing on Appeal From Sessions Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution proved ingredients of s.17(a) MACC Act beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether common intention under s.34 Penal Code was proved
  3. 3 Whether presumption under s.50 MACC Act applied and was rebutted on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the prosecution proved the ingredients of s.17(a) MACC Act and common intention under s.34 by circumstantial and eyewitness evidence; the statutory presumption under s.50 arose upon proof of gratification and the accused failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities; credibility findings of the Sessions Court were not displaced on appeal; therefore conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Conviction affirmed for offence under section 17(a) MACC Act read with section 34 Penal Code
  • Sentence affirmed: 2 years imprisonment and fine of RM10,000.00; in default 10 months imprisonment