Aitken J:

I have quashed the conviction in this case in a summary manner, and acting under the "full powers of supervision and revision" conferred upon me by s. 53 of the Courts Enactment. It is unusual, in such cases, to deliver a judgment in open Court; but since this case raises questions of law which are of considerable public importance, I have deemed it desirable to deal with them in a written judgment which will, I hope, be made available to all Police Officers and Magistrates.

At 2 a.m. on 22 April 1938 the accused Man bin Ismail who is a Malay boy, was found asleep under a tree on the bank of the Perak River at Kuala Kangsar by a Chief Inspector of Police. His only clothing was a much worn shirt and a pair of shorts, and he had no money with him. When questioned by the Chief Inspector, he replied that he had been out of work for some time past, and had just arrived at Kuala Kangsar from Kuala Lumpur, having taken five days over the journey. On his way he had kept himself 'alive by begging for food, and he had saved himself both time and exertion by obtaining lifts from lorry drivers. He told the Chief Inspector that he had come to Kuala Kangsar to look for his father or his uncle. I am not quite clear which-at a place called Lubok Merbau, which is some five miles down river from Kuala Kangsar; and that he thought he had inherited some property from his mother who had died whilst he was away.

Man bin Ismail was arrested and taken to the Police Station at Kuala Kangsar, and next day, 23 April 1938, he was produced before the learned Magistrate at that place upon the following charge:-

"That you on or about 22 April 1938 at 2 a.m. on the bank of the Perak River at Kuala Kangsar, were found lodging in the open air not having any ostensible means of subsistence: an offence against s. 3 (a) of Cap. 191 of the Laws of the FMS"

To this charge Man bin Ismail pleaded as follows:

"I came from Kuala Lumpur sometimes on foot and sometimes by free lifts (given me) by lorry drivers - in search of an uncle. I have no fixed place of abode. I plead guilty to the charge."

The learned Magistrate thereupon recorded a plea of guilty and convicted the accused.

It will be observed that Man bin Ismail was not asked by the learned Magistrate to give any account of himself before he was convicted, and it appears to be another strange feature in this case that as soon as his conviction was recorded, Man bin Ismail was allowed out on bail and the case adjourned to 25 April, 1938 so that the Chief Inspector could make inquiries as to the existence and where-abouts of the accused's father or uncle-again I cannot say which.

When the case came before the Court on 25 April 1938, the Chief Inspector summarised the facts for the prosecution in accordance with the account which Man bin Ismail had given to him when he was arrested on 22 and added that no relatives had been found who would "own kinship" with the boy. (From the newspaper reports I gather that the Police had discovered an uncle of Man bin Ismail presumably at Lubok Merbau - but that the latter had refused to have anything to do with his nephew). The Chief Inspector added that there had been many petty thefts in the Kuala Kangsar district, and that he had reason to believe that such offences were committed by people in the same condition as the accused. There was no suggestion of any previous conviction against Man bin Ismail, but the learned Magistrate proceeded to sentence him to ten days rigorous imprisonment.

Fortunately a report of this case in the Times of Malaya of 27 April 1938, caught my eye, and I telegraphed the learned Magistrate to forward the record to me as soon as possible. The learned Magistrate lost no time in complying with my request, and I received the record next day in the afternoon. In the result, after perusing that record, I telegraphed to the learned Magistrate again quashing the conviction and directing the release of Man bin Ismail from prison. I