Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 454 [2021] 2 MLRA dalam Akta Keterangan 1950. Tujuan peruntukan anggapan berasaskan owner honest principal, dengan izin, adalah untuk meringankan beban pembuktian berhubung dengan fakta tertentu. Walau bagaimanapun, pihak pendakwa yang ingin bersandar kepada peruntukan anggapan mesti membuktikan terlebih dahulu kewujudan fakta-fakta tertentu sebelum anggapan boleh dibuat terhadap seseorang. Apabila wujud keterangan yang cukup untuk dibuat anggapan terhadap seseorang dan mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa anggapan boleh dibuat, beban pembuktian untuk membuktikan atau menyangkal anggapan itu berpindah kepada orang yang terhadapnya anggapan dibuat. Beban pembuktian orang yang terhadapnya anggapan dibuat adalah atas imbangan kebarangkalian, dengan izin, balance of probabilities yang lebih ringan daripada beban pembuktian yang diletakkan ke atas pihak pendakwa.” [Emphasis Added] [49] From the above speech, it is apparent that the challenges in identifying cybercriminal trickle down to tracing the offenders who naturally can hide behind the cloak of internet anonymity. Although the email address, IP address, location, owner of the computer can be traced, the verification of the identity of the sender or commentator remains difficult. This warranted a provision on presumption based on the ‘owner’s honest principal’ to ease the burden of proof in respect of certain facts. At first blush, the principal actor such as the internet owner etc should be the first target to be imputed with liability. [50] However, the Minister in his statement did caution that the Public Prosecutor must be able to prove the existence of the basic facts before invoking that presumption. [51] Plainly stated, the presumption in s 114A is a rebuttable one. Rebuttal raised must be on the balance of probabilities. Rebuttals Raised By The Respondents [52] The respondents attempted to rebut that presumption, taking the line of defence that they are not to be held responsible simply because they have no knowledge of the impugned comments. After all, they were not originated or authored by them. [53] The 1st respondent denied having knowledge through an affidavit deposed by its Director, Premesh Chandaran s/o Jeyachandran dated 29 June 2020 (in Encl 32). The denial of knowledge was anchored on the following facts: (i) there was no requirement under the law which obligates the respondents to moderate every comment posted by the third party subscribers; (ii) neither of them authored the impugned comments; (iii) neither of them were involved in the posting of the impugned comments;