PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today reinstated the Shah Alam Sessions Court’s decision, sentencing a former Sessions Court judge to six months’ imprisonment and imposing a RM25,000 fine for accepting bribes in connection with court proceedings.
A three-judge panel, chaired by Justice Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, upheld the Sessions Court’s sentence after allowing the public prosecutor’s final appeal to overturn the Shah Alam High Court’s decision on July 31, 2023, which had reduced the sentence to one day’s imprisonment and a RM12,000 fine.
In a unanimous decision, Justice Mohd Nazlan said corruption was a serious offence that undermined economic growth and denied the people their right to efficient services.
“What is even more serious in this case is that the offence was committed by a civil servant who was serving as a Sessions Court judge and entrusted with judicial responsibilities.
“This certainly betrays the trust of responsibility, erodes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial institution, and undermines the country’s justice system,” he said.
The panel included Justices Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan and Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh.
Justice Mohd Nazlan said that after reviewing the appeal record, the court found that the Sessions Court judge had given due consideration to both the mitigating and aggravating factors, as well as the relevant sentencing principles, before handing down the sentence.
“There was an error in the High Court’s reasoning in replacing the six-month jail sentence with one day, which did not justify interfering with the Sessions Court’s ruling,” he said.
He said the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court judge was proportionate, fair, reasonable and not excessive.
“Therefore, the court allows the prosecution’s appeal. The sentence imposed by the High Court is set aside, and the Sessions Court’s sentence of six months’ imprisonment and a RM25,000 fine, in default of six months’ jail, is upheld.
“The court also orders a committal warrant to be issued and the respondent (Azmil Muntapha) to be detained immediately,” said Justice Mohd Nazlan.
It is understood that Azmil Muntapha will be taken to Kajang Prison.
On Oct 19, 2022, Azmil Muntapha was sentenced to six months’ jail and fined RM25,000 by the Shah Alam Sessions Court after he was found guilty of accepting a bribe in connection with court proceedings.
He was charged in his capacity as a Sessions Court judge with having obtained for himself RM5,000 without consideration from a person who he knew had a connection with his official function involving court proceedings of six accused persons in criminal cases.
The six accused - Chin Yat Soong, Yap Chiew Tat, Chin See Shak, Pang Kooi Fook, Yap Swee Ming, and Chin Chee Keong - were charged under Section 9 of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 (Act 289) and were fined by Azmil Muntapha for the offence.
Azmil Muntapha was charged with committing the offence at Maybank Setia Alam 2, near here, on May 10, 2018. The charge, under Section 165 of the Penal Code, carries a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both, if found guilty.
Earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor Farah Ezlin Yusop Khan argued that the Sessions Court judge had not erred in imposing a prison sentence on the respondent (Azmil Muntapha), sending a clear message to the public about the seriousness of the offence.
“When reduced to one day’s imprisonment, it fails to serve as a deterrent to the public against committing similar offences and undermines the seriousness of the crime committed by someone in such a position,” she said.
She further said that the High Court judge had erred in concluding that the third prosecution witness (a police officer) and the fourth prosecution witness (a deputy registrar) had a major influence on the respondent.
Meanwhile, lawyer Datuk Wira Mohtarudin Baki, who represented Azmil Muntapha pro bono, said that the prosecution’s argument, which raised issues of public interest and upholding the judiciary, was rhetorical.
“This is because no action was taken against the third and fourth prosecution witnesses. In addition, the prison sentence has affected the respondent’s career over the past 17 years, resulting in a loss of self-confidence,” said the former Court of Appeal judge.
