Laville J:

[1] The judgment of the trial Court was as follows:

[2] The accused is charged under s 3 of the Malayan Union Ordinance No 28/46 with unlawful possession of a 38 revolver Y6490 and 3 rounds of 38 ammunition at Chuan Heng San Estate at the 2nd mile Labis - Segamat Road on 29 May 1948.

[3] The prosecution evidence is that the police had one See Yo Poh under arrest for some other offence. As a result of what he said they sent for the accused Tay Chai Keh and allowed him to converse with See Yo Poh in the hearing of the investigating officer, Inspector Tay Lay Seng, who heard what they said and understood the dialect they spoke. As a result of that conversation Tay Chai Keh took the Inspector and other police to a fruit plantation and rubber estate owned by his brothers and himself as beneficiaries of his deceased father's undistributed estate.

[4] There accused walked to a dead recumbent tree lying off the path, one among many such dead trees, and pointed to a hole in the tree. The hole was covered with leaves; the leaves were brushed away and a DPC put his hand in the hole and in it found a bundle wrapped and tied in cloth and clearly from the shape of the bundle a revolver or pistol. Inspector Tay opened it and revolver Y6490 of 38 calibre was disclosed.

[5] Accused next took the police to his house on the rubber estate, got a key from his room, took the police to a scrap rubber store on the estate, opened the door with the key, walked inside, was seen to stoop down in the left hand corner of the shed, lift up a board and take out something, and then walked back to Inspector Tay at the door: the bottle, Ex A, contained concealed in ashes three 38 revolver bullets. Later the gun and one of the bullets were tested and found to be in efficient order.

[7] Cross examination was directed to whether accused went direct to tree or had to search for it: the prosecution witnesses say accused cast a glance as he entered the plantation at all the fallen trees and then went straight to the one in which the revolver was found.

[8] Another point raised in cross-examination was whether Inspector Tay asked accused "Where is the ammunition?" or "Where is the bottle?", the suggestion being that accused did not himself know where the gun and ammunition were but had received a description from See Yo Poh in his talk with him and so was able to take police to it.

[9] The prosecution evidence proved the incidences of possession in the accused. Both articles were found in a place over which he had control; they were found respectively in places which it is reasonable to assume would only be known to a person who put them there, and to which he could therefore go without hesitation. There is no evidence of hesitation about accused's movements in going to the particular tree or to the place in the store; the fact that he looked around the dead trees to pick out the one he wanted is what one would naturally expect in such a situation from a man placed as he was.

[10] The defence of the accused was that See Yo Poh told him where the revolver and ammunition were hidden on his, the accused's, estate, and he simply led the police to that place. He suggested in his evidence in the PE which formed part of the record that a Hailam Chew Keng See was concerned in the disposal of the gun where it was found, and the police admit they are looking for a man of that name in connection with the charge against See