JUDGMENT

Murray-Aynsley CJ:

These proceedings arose under s. 83 of the Liquors Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 225) and concerned a motor vehicle.

No prosecution took place and the alleged liquor and the vehicle were found without an apparent owner. Notice was given under s. 83(3) and the present appellant claimed the vehicle. The Ordinance does not say what is to be done in such a case, but the Magistrate proceeded to hear and determine the issue as to whether an offence under the Ordinance had been committed and as to whether the vehicle had been used in connection with such offence. On the strength of his findings he made an order for forfeiture.

Assuming the procedure to be correct, the only question is whether his findings of fact were justified. Substantially the points to be considered are whether there was evidence that the goods seized were intoxicating liquors within the meaning of s. 2 of the Ordinance, and whether in that case they were dutiable within the meaning of the same section.

As regards the second point, as there was no prosecution I do not think that the presumption under s. 76 applies. However, when people are found at 9 p.m. landing from a sampan bottles labelled Hennessy's Brandy and stamped "Singapore duty not paid", there is evidence on which a Court can find that duty had not been paid.

In order to prove that the contents were "intoxicating liquor" the prosecution produced a certificate. This certificate did not in terms say how much "pure alcohol by weight" there was in the contents but merely the percentage of proof spirit. I think that this certificate is sufficient although it would have been more satisfactory if it followed the terms of the definition. The more substantial question is as to whether the matter could be proved by a certificate. Section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited in its scope to "any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code". I do not think that the particular proceedings were under the Criminal Procedure Code. By s. 3 the Criminal Procedure Code is only applied to the enquiry into and trial of offences. Therefore I think the certificate was not admissible and the chemist should have been called.

The order of the Magistrate is set aside.

Order for forfeiture set aside.