KUALA LUMPUR - The Sessions Court today granted Lim Guan Eng's application to obtain a forensic report of WhatsApp conversations between two businessmen in a corruption case involving the former Penang Chief Minister.
Judge Azura Alwi made the decision after finding that there were two different testimonies in two courts involving the same payment voucher and cheque as to who received the RM2 million and the purpose of the payment.
Azura said based on the notes of proceedings and written statements of the witnesses in Shah Alam court, that had been produced as exhibits in the application, the court found that the applicant (Lim) had successfully proved the fact that payment vouchers and Public Bank cheques were used to withdraw the RM2 million, which was said to have been handed over to businessman G. Gnanaraja.
"In the case before this court (Sessions Court), the evidence also showed that the same payment voucher and cheque had also been submitted and had been marked as exhibits P140 and P141, and that the RM2 million was said to have been handed over to the accused (Lim).
"The evidence also showed that there was a discussion about the money (RM2 million) through a WhatsApp conversation between Consortium Zenith Construction Sdn Bhd (CZCSB) director Datuk Zarul Ahmad Mohd Zulkifli and Gnanaraja,” she said.
Azura said there was also a digital forensic analysis report prepared by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) regarding the WhatsApp conversation that was submitted before the court here.
"However, the digital forensic analysis report produced in the Shah Alam court case, which was requested by the applicant was never submitted to this court," she said.
In this regard, Azura said the matter was a relevant issue according to Sections 5 and 11 of the Evidence Act 1950 where comprehensive facts must be presented and submitted to the court so that the truth can be known.
"The applicant needs to get the digital forensic analysis report and the complainant's report in the Shah Alam Court case to provide a fair defence. The court agreed and found that the principles of equality and fair trial as enshrined in Article 5 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution will be achieved by allowing this application.
"Following that, the applicant has successfully demonstrated to the court why the forensic report is necessary and important to the defence and the application under Section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be allowed," said the judge. - BERNAMA
Judge Azura Alwi made the decision after finding that there were two different testimonies in two courts involving the same payment voucher and cheque as to who received the RM2 million and the purpose of the payment.
Azura said based on the notes of proceedings and written statements of the witnesses in Shah Alam court, that had been produced as exhibits in the application, the court found that the applicant (Lim) had successfully proved the fact that payment vouchers and Public Bank cheques were used to withdraw the RM2 million, which was said to have been handed over to businessman G. Gnanaraja.
"In the case before this court (Sessions Court), the evidence also showed that the same payment voucher and cheque had also been submitted and had been marked as exhibits P140 and P141, and that the RM2 million was said to have been handed over to the accused (Lim).
"The evidence also showed that there was a discussion about the money (RM2 million) through a WhatsApp conversation between Consortium Zenith Construction Sdn Bhd (CZCSB) director Datuk Zarul Ahmad Mohd Zulkifli and Gnanaraja,” she said.
Azura said there was also a digital forensic analysis report prepared by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) regarding the WhatsApp conversation that was submitted before the court here.
"However, the digital forensic analysis report produced in the Shah Alam court case, which was requested by the applicant was never submitted to this court," she said.
In this regard, Azura said the matter was a relevant issue according to Sections 5 and 11 of the Evidence Act 1950 where comprehensive facts must be presented and submitted to the court so that the truth can be known.
"The applicant needs to get the digital forensic analysis report and the complainant's report in the Shah Alam Court case to provide a fair defence. The court agreed and found that the principles of equality and fair trial as enshrined in Article 5 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution will be achieved by allowing this application.
"Following that, the applicant has successfully demonstrated to the court why the forensic report is necessary and important to the defence and the application under Section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be allowed," said the judge. - BERNAMA