Raja Azlan Shah J (delivering oral judgment):

[1] The appellant was convicted of the offence of theft of 21 old wooden beams to the value of $10.50 belonging to one Abdullah bin Mukim Mat, an offence under s 379 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty and convicted, and fined a sum of $300, in default three months imprisonment. The facts are as follows: the complainant found that 21 old wooden beams which he had placed on his land were missing and the missing beams were subsequently traced to the appellant, in the circumstances which prima facie established an offence under s 379 of the Penal Code.

[2] There are two grounds of appeal. Firstly, that the learned trial magistrate erred in law in not exercising his discretion under s 259(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 6) in adjourning or postponing the case to enable the appellant to call a witness by name Kamal Ariffin. Secondly, that the learned trial magistrate was wrong in presuming that under s 114(g) of the Evidence Ordinance that if Kamal Ariffin were called to give evidence his evidence would be unfavourable.

[3] The appellant gave evidence on oath to the effect that the beams were given to him by a contractor named