Murray-Aynsley CJ:

In this case the appellant had been convicted of an offence under s. 354 of the Penal Code and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment.

Various objections were taken to the proceedings in the Court below. I think that the consideration of one matter is sufficient.In this case the complainant was an adult.In cases of this kind corroboration is desirable though not technically essential.Where the case has been heard by a Magistrate or a District Judge the appellate Court must be satisfied that the Court below appreciated fully the desirability of having corroboration and was not under a misapprehension that something was corroboration which as a matter of law was not.In this connection it should be noted that what is described as corroboration in s. 157 of the Evidence Ordinance 'is not corroboration for this purpose.The effect of s. 157 is to render generally admissible statements by the complainant which in England are only admissible in cases of rape and kindred offences.Such statements are not corroboration in England and therefore, where as a matter of practice corroboration is required or desirable, they should not be regarded otherwise here.

The question of the complaint in these cases is different from that of corroboration.It is not in any way at the present time a legal requirement, but where there is no complaint within a time that is, in the circumstances reasonable, naturally no Court would convict, on the evidence of the complainant.

The law as to corroboration is laid down fully in the case of Rex v. Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 and applied locally in Rex V. Velayuthan [1935] 1 MLRH 438, [1935] MLJ 277 .

In the present case I do not consider that there was any corroboration and I am not satisfied that the Magistrate, who otherwise gave extremely careful attention to the matter, gave sufficient attention to this aspect of the case.

In the circumstances the appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.

Appeal allowed.