[Public Prosecutor vs Rutinin Bin Sulaiman – K42-60-2010] of evidence. For this reason, the failure to tender the outer box is not relevant also. 215 As for the witness statements that were taken during the investigation after office hours, it should not have been an issue. The prosecution did not rely on the statement of the accused person or his employees to establish a prima facie case. They have relied on circumstantial evidence afforded by the 220 online paper trail. The accused was the owner of the shop and the holder of the internet account which was used to post the remark in question. Although the new section 114A does not apply to the instant case as the offensive remark was 225 posted before 31st July 2012, the circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong to conclude that the accused had used the internet account that was registered in his name at the material time. The accused is not required to rebut any statutory presumption but he is still required to raise a reasonable doubt that he was not responsible for the posting in question. 230 As for evidence in respect of intention, it is always a matter of inference. From the fact that an offensive remark pertaining to the HRH Sultan of Perak had been posted on the online visitor book, it can be inferred that the accused had intended to cause annoyance. It is also unnecessary to call the 235 victim of the annoying remark to the witness stand. Section 233(1)(b) does not say that the victim of the offence must actually feel annoyed or abused. The provision only says that the offender must have intention to annoy or abuse. Therefore it is sufficient if the communication in question has the 9