Ong Hock Sim J (delivering oral judgment):

[1] In this case, I will deal only with the second charge as Counsel for the defence agrees that he would not argue on the first charge, which is based on a technicality. The second charge reads:

"That you on 18 April 1969 at about 6.30 am at an unnumbered hut at Bertam Estate, Kepala Batas, in the District of Butterworth, in the State of Penang, were found, without lawful excuse, to have in your possession a subversive document, to wit a document titled "Is Malaya a Democratic Country? Is there Freedom of Assembly, Association, Speech, Publication, Strike, Demonstration etc." and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 29(1) of the Internal Security Act No 12 of 1960."

[2] In this case, the appellant was apprehended while he was with a group of persons painting some writings on the roadside. On the next day, an inspector took him to his house where in a room, which his mother, a prosecution witness, admitted, was occupied by him, the publication entitled "Quotations from Chairman Mao" specified in the first charge and the alleged subversive documents were found. Translations were made of the pamphlets (P 2A) and produced in Court. This was the only evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is not stated in the charge just how the pamphlets were classified as within the definition of a "subversive document" as defined in s 29 of the Internal Security Act. I do not need to say whether the provisions of the Internal Security Act over-ride or are merely complementary to the provisions relating to search contained in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 21) which latter requires a list to be given. I quote s 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

"68(1) A list of all things seized in the course of a search made under this Chapter and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person making such search and signed by him.

(2) The occupant of the place searched or some person in his behalf shall in every instance be permitted to attend during the search and a copy of the list prepared and signed under this section shall be delivered to such occupant or person at his request."

[3] This, however, is not a search made under the Criminal Procedure Code. s 30(1) of the Internal Security Act reads:

"30(1) Any police officer not below the rank of inspector may, without warrant and with or without assistance:

(a) enter and search any premises;

(b) stop and search any vehicle, vessel, train, aircraft or individual, whether in a public place or not, if he suspects that any document, publication, material or article being evidence of the commission of an offence against this Chapter is likely to be found in such vehicle, vessel, train, aircraft or on such individual, and may seize any document, publication, material or article so found."

[4] It will be noted that while it reads ".... in such vehicle, vessel, train, aircraft or on such individual" "premises" appearing in (a) has been omitted.

[5]"Subversive document" is defined in sub-section (3) of s 29 of the Internal Security Act as any document having in part or in whole a tendency:-

"(a) to excite organised violence against person or property in the Federation; or

(b) to support, propagate or advocate any act prejudicial to the security of the Federation or the maintenance or restoration of public order therein or inciting to violence therein or Counselling disobedience to the law thereof or to any lawful order therein; or

(c) to invite, request or demand support for or on account of any collection, subscription, contribution or donation, whether in money or in kind, for the direct or indirect benefit or use of persons who intend to act or are about to act, or have acted, in a manner prejudicial to the security of the Federation or to the maintenance of public order there or who incite to violence therein or Counsel disobedience to the law thereof or any lawful order therein."