Azrol bin Khalil v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Azrol Bin Khalil

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
• YA Dato' Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

• The appellant, a corporal in the Royal Malaysian Police attached to the Commercial Crime Investigation Division, was convicted under section 16(a)(B) of the MACC Act 2009 for corruptly receiving RM16,000 cash from a complainant as an inducement to close a commercial crime investigation against him.
• The prosecution's case relied on WhatsApp messages, recorded phone conversations, a pin-hole camera recording of a trap operation, and the appellant's receipt of marked trap money during a meeting arranged by MACC officers.
• The appellant's defence was that he merely collected the money on behalf of his superior officer (SP11) for distribution among several other named individuals, and that he had no personal interest in the money nor any actual power to close the investigation; the High Court on first appeal had upheld the Sessions Court conviction and sentence of 3 years' imprisonment and a RM80,000 fine (in default 1 year imprisonment).

• Whether failure to produce written authority under section 377(b)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecuting officer rendered the prosecution invalid, absent any challenge raised at trial.
• Whether the charge was defective for alleging receipt of gratification "for himself" when evidence suggested part of the money was intended for another person, and whether this affected the burden of proof.
• Whether section 16(a)(B) of the MACC Act requires the recipient of the bribe to personally possess the power to act or refrain from acting, and whether the presumption under section 50(1) required the prosecution to prove such power or that the promised act was actually carried out.

• The Court held that a letter of authority under section 377(b)(3) CPC need only be produced if the prosecutor's authority is challenged before trial; since no such challenge was raised, the prosecution's authority was validly presumed and the charge was not defective merely because the appellant claimed he collected the money for another.
• The Court found that section 16(a)(B) contemplates two distinct classes of persons — the recipient of the bribe and the public officer expected to act — and does not require the recipient himself to hold the power to act; it suffices that there is a nexus between receipt of the bribe and an inducement directed at a public officer (real or represented), and the act need not be shown to have been completed, only proposed or likely.
• The Court agreed that once receipt of the gratification was proved, the presumption of corrupt receipt under section 50(1) of the MACC Act applied and the burden shifted to the appellant to rebut it on a balance of probabilities, which he failed to do; the appeal was accordingly dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.