JUDGMENT

Ba U, J - I regret to say that I do not quite know what the finding of the Magistrate on the facts exactly is. He says:

I do not consider that the accused was driving with due caution for the reason that in driving attention has not merely to be given to approaching cars, but to traffic coming up from behind as well. Mr. Robson does not explain how a oar behind him could possibly be expected to see his signal of his intention to turn to the right by putting his hand up to the windscreen. If the road had been clear of all traffic no doubt his action in not communicating a turn signal to possible traffic coming up from behind would be excusable but in the present case there was a car not so very far behind him and it was the presence of that car which to my mind was the cause of the accident.

2. Does the Magistrate mean by this that the accepts the version as given by the appellant that he drove his car slowly and that he put his hand up to give his signal to the complainant when he was about to turn into the training college compound? If so, with all due respect to the Magistrate, I must say that he has not applied the law correctly to the facts of this case. On the other hand, if he does not accept the version as given by the appellant but accepts the one given by the complainant, the conviction of the appellant must, in my opinion, be upheld. The version given by the complainant is this:

I was driving from north to south along Prome Road at a speed of about 20 m.p.h. "I was on the left side of the road. When I was about as far from the entrance to the college as this box is from the end of the room I saw two cars approaching me from the south. They were more or less abreast. One was an open two seater and it was on the right of the road directly opposite me, the other car was on its left. The open car was about the same distance from the gate as I was.... When I was about as far as from this rail to the wall on the right of the Court I noticed the car opposite me begin to turn into the gate. I was looking for a signal because I did not know whether he was going to come on down the road on my right or turn into the gate. The first indication I got that he meant to turn into the gate was when I saw his wheels turn towards the gate. I then swerved to the right to avoid him. As I did so I skidded broadside or across the road and the open four seater caught my car on the side and I swung round into the ditch.

3. This version is not exactly in consonance with the version as given by George Hla Maung and his driver Baw Din. From the evidence of these witnesses it appears that the version as given by the complainant is to some extent exaggerated. In fact, that is also the view of the Magistrate for he says:

in view of the evidence on record it would not appear that any serious exaggeration has occurred.

4. It appears to my mind that the facts as deposed to by George Hla Maung and Raw Din are the correct facts. George Hla Maung says:

I do not remember how far I was from the Teachers College when I first noticed the small car.... When I first noticed it was not right on her left of the road but slightly to the middle. It kept that course. When it came to one, of the gates of the Teachers College it suddenly turned to the right.... When the small car moved over to the right I cannot say how far it was from the entrance gate. It got close to the grass path before it turned.

5. The evidence of his driver Baw Din is also more or less to the same effect. This in a way corroborates what the appellant has said. He said in the course of his written statement that when he got in front of the "University Training College he turned from the left to the right intending to enter the University Training College and that when he discovered that he had made a mistake with regard to the gate he kept to the right instead of going to the left to enter by the next gate as the next gate was only about 80 yards away. He further said that he drove the car sl