Sometime in the month of February 1984 the State Government of Malacca made publicly known of its intention to develop the ancient 103 acres Chinese cemetery in Bukit China. The Trustees of the cemetery and also of the temple at the foot of the hill immediately objected to this proposal. The matter was prominently reported in the press and soon the entire issue understandably grew into a subject of public controversy. Amongst those who voiced their opposition to the State Government's proposal was the Democratic Action Party. It is an undisputed fact that a week or so before the event the Secretary of the Party, Mr. Lim Kit Siang, had announced through the press of his intention of holding a "walk and jog" meeting at Bukit China on August 19, 1984.

At 6.15 a.m. on that day, 20 or 30 persons had already gathered at the temple located at the foot of the hill. Barely two hours later, by 8.00 a.m., the number alarmingly swelled to around 800 to 900 persons.

The Chief Police Officer of Malacca, A.C.P. Ahmad Tajuddin bin Idris, who was previously aware of this event deployed one troop of the Federal Reserve Unit and several hundred policemen around the area. There were some sort of activity going on in the temple after which the participants started to walk and jog along the way uphill. No licence was ever asked for or issued in respect of this event. Apparently the crowd was not unruly. The O.C.P.D. who was supervising his men around the area thought that no offence had been committed by anyone.

Meanwhile, on another part of the scene about 600 yards away from the temple a police road block manned by several police personnel stopped a busload of people wearing T shirts with the words "Save Bukit China" imprinted on them. On the bus itself a banner bearing the inscription "Members of D.A.P. Selangor to join the big walk" was strung across the right side of the vehicle. When C.P.O. Ahmad Tajuddin arrived at the spot 5 minutes later he found the passengers were in the process of alighting from the bus. He tried to stop them from doing so, but they refused and kept descending from the bus. At this stage the C.P.O. issued a warning through his loud hailer to the effect that those who were gathered in front of him were committing unlawful assembly under section 27 of the Police Act and he ordered them to disperse immediately or face police action. The crowd ignored this warning and walked on towards the direction of the temple. The C.P.O. then proceeded ahead of the crowd and repeated the same warning. Instead of dispersing, one lady member of the group challenged him to arrest them. On the C.P.O.'s instruction the 18 respondents were arrested and taken to the police station. They were subsequently released on bail and charged in Court.

The learned President who sat as a Magistrate hearing the case acquitted and discharged all the 18 respondents without their defence being called. Hence the present appeal to this Court by the prosecution.

In his surprisingly prosaic and somewhat inconclusive judgment the learned President without judiciously going into the merits of the evidence before him or assigning adequate reason therefor, arrived at a bare conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the 18 respondents had participated in an assembly under section 27(5)(a) of the Police Act.

The learned President particularised 4 ingredients which he said the prosecution had to prove viz:

(1) All the accused persons had formed an assembly.

(2) There was knowledge on the part of accused persons to take part in this unlawful assembly.

(3) There was intention on the part of all the accused persons to attend the assembly.

(4) Public place.

In respect of the 1st ingredient the learned President offered the following reasoning:

"In this case the passengers of the motor bus were alighting from the said bus going toward the temple which is no offence committed".

To start with it is not known how the learned President arrived at this