[2022] 1 MLRA 1
Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Suraya Othman, Abu Bakar Jais, Ahmad Nasfy Yasin JJCA
[Criminal Appeal No: W-05(SH)-440-12-2020]
Suraya Othman, Abu Bakar Jais, Ahmad Nasfy Yasin JJCA


Ahmad Nasfy Yasin JCA (Majority):


[1] The appellant was charged before the Kuala Lumpur High Court, which charge reads as follows:

"That you, on 14 June 2016, at CIMB Bank Berhad, Pusat Bandar Damansara Branch, Level 1, Lot A4, Block A, Pusat Bandar Damansara, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, being a public servant, Kuala Lumpur, being a public servant, to wit, the Minister for Federal Territories, accepted for yourself a valuables thing without consideration, to wit, the sum of RM2,000,000.00 from one Chai Kim Kong by way of a Hong Leong Islamic Bank cheque No 136822 belonging to Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd that was deposited into CIMB Bank account no 8001179747 belonging to Tadmansori Holding Sdn Bhd in which you had an interest, when you knew that Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd had a connection with your official function, and you have thereby committed and offence punishable under s 165 of the Penal Code"

[2] At the end of the trial, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted. He was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment and a fine of RM2,000,000.00 and in default six months' imprisonment.

[3] The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence. We heard the appeal. After carefully considering all the submissions, in writing and that made orally by both parties, we came to a decision, which is not unanimous. By a majority we allowed the appeal. Our learned brother, Abu Bakar Jais, JCA dissents and rendered his brief grounds in affirming the decision of the court below. We have, in announcing our decision earlier rendered our broad grounds. The following are our full grounds for the majority. We will, where necessary comment on the brief grounds furnished by our learned brother, as at the time of writing these grounds, we have not the advantage of reading his full grounds. Needless to say, where we find it necessary, we will provide a response thereto, following the precedent by the majority in Federal Court in the case of R Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1996] 1 MELR 71; [1996] 1 MLRA 725; [1997] 1 MLJ 145; [1997] 1 CLJ 147; [1997] 1 AMR 433.

Sign up to view full cases Login