Pahang land and mines officers freed of graft charges

PETALING JAYA: The sessions court in Kuantan has acquitted two officers from the Pahang land and mines department of charges involving RM30,000 in bribes allegedly received from an unlicensed bauxite miner more than a decade ago.

Judge Sazlina Safie held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Section 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act against Fadly Ab Malek and Syed Umar Khalil Syed Khalid.

Fadly was accused of receiving RM30,000 from Anurul Hiraq Abu Bakar as an inducement to provide protection for illegal bauxite mining activities. Syed Umar was alleged to have abetted Fadly in committing the offence.

The court also acquitted Fadly of another charge under the same section involving RM35,000 allegedly received from Anurul. The offences were said to have taken place between Nov 18, 2015 and Jan 6, 2016, in and around Kuantan.

In her judgment, Sazlina held that the Section 17(a) charges against the two men were “illegal” and therefore null and void under the law.

She said that before the trial began on April 26, 2016, the prosecution reduced the charges to Section 213 of the Penal Code, which relates to accepting gratification to conceal an offence.

A conviction under Section 213 carries a jail term of up to seven years, while Section 17(a) of the MACC Act provides for imprisonment of up to 20 years.

“The burdens of proof for offences under Section 17(a) of the MACC Act and Section 213 of the Penal Code are different.

“The trial proceeded under Section 213, but the prosecution amended the charges back to the original Section 17(a) when the investigating officer took the stand as the final witness.

“The prosecution never recalled its previous 28 witnesses to prove the ingredients required under Section 17(a),” Sazlina said.

The court also held that, based on binding superior court precedent, once charges are amended or reduced, the prosecution cannot make a “U-turn” and restore the original charges because the original charges would have lapsed.

“This action (restoring the original charges) caused confusion to both accused persons as to which charges they had to defend themselves against,” Sazlina said.

المصدر: Free Malaysia Today