Mohamad Amin Shahul Hamid, 40, formerly a magistrate at the Lipis dan Raub court, was charged with soliciting bribes amounting to RM100,000 and receiving RM110,000 from one Hassan Basri Ahmad Sutan Modo in Lipis and Raub between July 5 and October 22, 2019. — Reuters pic
KUANTAN, Nov 19 — The Sessions Court here today set January 11 for decision on a case involving a former magistrate charged with nine counts of bribery, amounting to RM210,000.
Judge Datuk Ahmad Zamzani Mohd Zain fixed the date after hearing submissions by both parties at the end of the defence case.
Mohamad Amin Shahul Hamid, 40, formerly a magistrate at the Lipis dan Raub court, was charged with soliciting bribes amounting to RM100,000 and receiving RM110,000 from one Hassan Basri Ahmad Sutan Modo in Lipis and Raub between July 5 and October 22, 2019.
The bribes were as an inducement for the accused not to fine and jail Hassan Basri who was then facing a charge for possession of smuggled cigarettes.
Lawyer RSN Rayer, representing the accused, submitted that there were doubts in the case as the prosecution did not produce the footage of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera which was said to be an important evidence to prove that his client accepted the money.
“If the prosecution took steps to play the audio recording, why was there no CCTV recording had the investigators installed the CCTV at the scene. Isn’t the CCTV recording the best evidence? Failure to do so should give the accused the benefit of the doubt,” he added.
Deputy public prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) responded by saying that there was no need to submit the CCTV footage because the case relied on the testimony of witnesses.
This included by the 15th prosecution witness who confirmed having handed over the money and several witnesses from the MACC who saw the accused enter the victim’s shop and came out with a bag, he said.
Apart from that, he said, the prosecution submitted the call log of the accused’s telephone number and the 15th prosecution witness, which showed they were in communication.
“So, it is a lie if the accused said he had no contact with the victim,” he added. — Bernama