Willan CJ:

In this case the appellant was convicted of being in possession of nine rounds of ammunition, an offence contrary to reg. 4(1)(b) of the Emergency Regulations 1948.

The facts are that a police corporal met the appellant on 8 February 1949 in a Chinese drinking shop at a place called Nenasik on the east coast of Pahang.The police corporal admitted that for six months prior to that date he had known that the appellant was a police informer.

As soon at this meeting took place, the police corporal asked the appellant if he had any information, whereupon the appellant indicated that he had ammunition in his house.The police corporal accompanied the appellant to his house, and there the appellant took from a bag, hanging near the door of the house, a magazine containing eight rounds of ammunition which he handed to the police corporal.The police corporal arrested him and took him to the police station at Pekan, about 23 miles distant.Prior to the appellant handing over the ammunition he had told the police corporal how he came to be in possession of it.

On arrival at the Pekan police station the appellant, without having been cautioned under reg. 33 of the Emergency Regulations 1948, was interrogated by the police inspector for about two hours.After this interrogation the police inspector and a police sergeant took the appellant back to his house at nenasik.Prior to setting out the police inspector warned the appellant that if anything else was found in his house he would get into trouble.Although the appellant at the time of this warning was under arrest - this was admitted by the police inspector - this warning could have been interpreted by the appellant that if no further ammunition was found in his house he would not get into trouble, not even as regards the eight rounds already found there.On arrival at Nenasik the police inspector specifically told the police sergeant to search the appellant's house for ammunition.He, the police inspector went to the house of a Chinese at Nenasik - the record is silent for what purpose - but we have no doubt it was for the purpose of searching that house for ammunition as a result of information given by the appellant during his interrogation.This must be so because in a statement made by the appellant a week after his arrest and after being cautioned - this statement was admitted in evidence at the trial - the appellant explained that he had obtained the eight rounds of ammunition from a Malay who, in turn, had obtained them from a Chinese whose name the appellant gave.

The Chinese named by the appellant and whose house was searched by the police inspector, was called as a witness and offered by the prosecution for cross-examined as to whether he had given any ammunition to a Malay and not unnaturally, denied it.

Turning now to the evidence of the police sergeant - on arrival at the house of the appellant the police sergeant, in the presence of the appellant, searched the same bag as the one in which the appellant had kept the magazine containing the eight rounds of ammunition already mentioned, and in that bag found one more round of the same type of ammunition.The appellant was taken back to the police station at Pekan where he was kept in custody, and after one week i.e. on 15 February 1949, on being cautioned by the police inspector under reg. 33 of the Emergency Regulations 1948, made, as already mentioned, a statement which was admitted in evidence at his trial.With regard to the circumstances surrounding the making of this statement, the police inspector said he required a statement from the appellant to strengthen the case against him, and that he said to the appellant:

You have already told me how you got it" - meaning the ammunition - "would you like to tell me again in detail?

From an examination of that statement it is clear that the appellant, with regard to the eight round of ammunition about which he gave information to the police and which he voluntarily sur