[Public Prosecutor vs Rutinin Bin Sulaiman – K42-60-2010] As can be seen above, this provision is worded widely. The initiation of network usage need not be continuous. Therefore, a single instance of network usage would suffice. Communication need not necessarily ensue in the process. This means that a solitary posting of remark on a website which 140 did not elicit a reply is caught by this provision. It is also not relevant whether the accused had revealed his identity or otherwise during resession when the communication in question was made. The crucial ingredient of this offence is as follows: 1. That the accused person had made the communication in question 145 through a network facility. 2. The communication was made with “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person”. The learned Session Court Judge should have therefore considered whether: 1. On the evidence adduced by the prosecution, whether direct or 150 circumstantial, he could rule that the accused person initiated the communication in question. 2. Whether the communication in question, i.e. “Sultan Perak Sudah gilaaaaaa!!!!” is either annoying or abusive. 3. Whether the accused had intention to annoy or abuse any person. 155 After having considered all the arguments of the learned DPP and learned counsel for respondent, it is my opinion that this appeal should be allowed. My reasons are as follows: 6