Rigby J (delivering oral judgment):

The appellant in this case, a lad 16 years of age, was convicted of abetting the commission of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant by means of a knife. Upon conviction in the Juvenile Court an Order was made that he be sent to the Henry Gurney School for three years. The appeal is against both the conviction and sentence.

The brief facts of the case were that three young persons were playing cards in a back lane in Penang shortly after 8 o'clock at night when they were set upon by a gang of 5 or 6 Chinese youths. All the three persons who were then playing cards received injuries of varying nature as a result of the assault that were made upon them by these hooligans, who were armed with cutting instruments. At the close of the case for the prosecution, there being no evidence in the opinion of the trial Court that the appellant himself had caused any hurt to the complainant the charge was amended to one against him of abetting the commission of this offence of voluntarily causing hurt. The defence put up by the appellant was an alibi. The only evidence against him consisted of the identification of him by one of the three youths who were playing cards at the time. This youth said, in relation to the appellant:

He did not slash me, but he came with the assailants. He carried a parang. He chased me. I knew the accused for more than a year.

After the assault the complainant lodged a complaint at the Police Station that same night in which he gave the names of three of the assailants, including the accused. It is said by Mr. Triptipal Singh, for the appellant, that there was insufficient evidence of identification in this case. It may well be that the evidence of identification was slender, but the trial Court accepted the evidence of the complainant that he had known the appellant for a year, that he saw him on that occasion, and that he, in fact, named him in the complaint that he made on the same night at the Police Station. There was clearly, in my view, sufficient evidence to justify the conviction, and the appeal against the conviction is dismissed.

The next complaint made by Mr. Triptipal Singh is that at the close of the case for the prosecution, on the charge being amended to one of abetting the commission of the offence, the learned President, in accordance with the provisions of s. 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should have given the appellant an opportunity to recall and, if necessary, re-examine any of the witnesses who were called for the prosecution. Again, I am satisfied that it is a perfectly valid technical objection and the learned President clearly should have complied with s. 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But on the facts of the case I am wholly satisfied that no miscarriage of justice was caused by reason of the fact that he failed to do so. The appeal against the conviction is dismissed.

As regards the sentence, whilst I do not for a moment seek to minimise the seriousness of this type of offence, in this particular instance it would appear from the report - careful and detailed, as it invariably is - made by the Probation Officer in this case that the appellant, apart from one minor conviction for selling cinema tickets on the black market, has not been in trouble before. It would also appear -and it seems to me a point of substantial importance - that the Probation Officer investigated the matter as to whether there was any reason to believe that the appellant was implicated either directly or indirectly with secret societies in Penang and received a negative reply from the Police to the effect that there was no reason to believe that he had any connection with secret societies.

The appellant is the son of poor but entirely respectable parents, and it would seem that he renders the father some assistance in carrying on his trade or occupation as a "poh peah" vendor. In the particular circumstances of this caseand I must c