Howes J:

In this case the Appellant was charged that he between 17 May 1937 and 19 September 1937, at Balik Pulau, being entrusted with certain property, namely jewellery to the value of $1,063 the property of one Che Nah binte Itam, did commit breach of trust in respect of such property, and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 406 of the Penal Code.

Shortly, the case for the prosecution as told by Che Nah, the compliant, was that on two previous occasions, about 2'bd years, the appellant had borrowed jewellery from her (she could not remember the articles), and had returned them within a week or ten days.

On the third and present occasion, the Appellant borrowed various articles (which she enumerated) on 17 May 1937 at the house of her uncle, Haji Hassan, with whom the Complainant lived, at Balik Pulau. She stated that Hassan and a Siamese actor, Nai Yot were present on 17 May 1937; and that on the first occasion when the Appellant borrowed them, her husband Aboobakar and Nai Yot were present. She stated that the Appellant promised to return the jewellery within one week, but as he did not do so, she went to his shop at Bukit Mertajam, PW and asked for it. She said that the Appellant said it would be safer to leave the jewellery with him, as he had an iron safe. She agreed to this being done, and did not ask for the jewellery.

It is common around that on 19 May 1937 the Appellant pawned five articles of jewellery, Exh. A to E, with Ng Num, a pawnbroker at Kubang Semang, PW for $600, in respect of which four pawn tickets (Exhs. F1 to F4) were issued. The pawnbroker said he asked the Appellant to whom the jewellery belonged, and the Appellant said they were his own and that he wanted four tickets so as to redeem them in small suing. The Appellant signed the pledge book, and attached his chop at the request of the pawnbroker, as the value was more than $200.

The Complainant did nothing further till she had decided to return to Ipoh on 15 September 1937.

On 12 September, complainant says she went to Bukit Mertajam to collect her jewellery, but not finding the Appellant there, she went on to Nai Yot's house at Telaga Ayer, where she thought she might find the Appellant. She found Nai Yot who told her that the Appellant had pawned the jewellery and had given the pawn tickets to Nai Yot. Nai Yot produced the 4 Pawn tickets (in his evidence, he said from under his mattress, he being sick in bed at the time) and gave them to the complainant.

Subsequently, the complainant went to the pawnshop with Md Eusope and there saw the Exh. A to E which she identified as her jewellery and made a report to the police which resulted in the arrest of the Accused. The Exhibits were handed over to the Police by the pawnbroker.

Aboobakar, the husband of the complainant, supported his wife's story that the Appellant had borrowed her jewellery on the two previous occasions in his presence, but said he was not aware of the present loan until the complainant informed him.

Hassan, the uncle of the complainant and a retired police pensioner, said that the Appellant, whom he knew by sight, but not by name, came with a Siamese (whom he identified as Nai Yot) to his house on 17 May 1937 and asked the complainant for a loan of her jewellers as his (Appellant's) wife was attending a wedding He said that the complainant handed the Appellant 6 articles which he described. He said that the Appellant promised to return them in a week's time.

That is shortly the case for the prosecution, namely, that

(a) the Appellant borrowed the jewellery on 17 May 1937,

(b) the Appellant pawned the jewellery on the 19 May 1937,

(c) when asked by the complainant for its return, he suggested the jewellery was safer with him, locked in his safe.

On these facts the Appellant was arrested and charged with criminal breach of trust, of which offence he was convicted.

The appellant's advocate has pointed out that these three witnesses for the prosecution