Brown J:

The facts and arguments sufficiently appear from the judgment.

The Appellant was convicted by the learned Magistrate of being in possession of 9'bd yards of cloth valued at $10 which was reasonably suspected of being stolen or fraudulently obtained, contrary to s. 34(1) of the Minor Offences Ordinance, and was sentenced to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment.

The case for the prosecution was that at 8.50 p.m. on 28 June two police officers of the Singapore Harbour Police were on patrol near the Harbour Board Traffic Office. They saw a man walking, with something gripped under his armpit, in the direction of Gate 5. They flashed their torches on him, and the man ran about 20 feet towards the fence which borders Keppel Road. When he reached the fence he threw the bundle over the fence into Keppel Road. As soon as the man started to run the two policemen gave chase, and while they were giving chase over that distance of 20 feet they kept their torches flashed on to the man all the time. They caught him after he had thrown the bundle over the fence, and the man whom they caught was the accused. One of the police officers recovered the bundle from Keppel Road, and it was found to contain cloth (Ex B) tied in a handkerchief (Ex C). The accused was asked what he was doing, and he replied that he had taken the cloth from Godown 14. The police officer who had questioned the accused went to godown 14, where he found a lot of cloth similar to the cloth contained in the bundle.

By the section under which the accused was charged it is an offence to be in possession of anything which may reasonably be suspected of being stolen or fraudulently obtained, if the accused fails to account satisfactorily how he came by the same. The accused's story was that he was employed as a clerk by the Harbour Board, by whom he had been employed for 20 years. On the night in question he had been working on a ship at berth 13, from which damaged cargo was being taken to godowns 15 and 16. Having finished work he went to the lavatory near the Traffic Office, which he says is the only lavatory used during the night and is open to the staff both day and night. Coming out of the lavatory he heard footsteps of someone running, and he was arrested. He says that this lavatory, near to the place where he was arrested, is the only lavatory which is open at night. This point has been put to the first police officer in cross-examination and this is what he said:-

There is a lavatory near where the accused was arrested. This lavatory is locked after 5 p.m. I say that this lavatory cannot be used after 5 p.m.

The accused denied that he had ever made the statement to the police officer which he was alleged to have made - that he had got the cloth from godown 14. The accused called one witness, who was also a clerk employed by Harbour Board and works with the accused. He said that at 8.30 p.m. the accused told him that he was going to the lavatory, and when he left to go to the lavatory he was not carrying the cloth (Exh. B). He also said that he had never seen the accused use the handkerchief (Exh. C).

It is stated in ground (c) of the Petition that "the learned Magistrate having accepted that the prosecution had established a prima facie case from the circumstances thought the onus was on the accused to establish his innocence", and that he was wrong in law in coming to such a conclusion. But under the section, as soon as the prosecution have established a reasonable suspicion that the article of which the accused is in possession has been stolen, it is then upon the accused to give a satisfactory account of how he came by it. But there is no question of the accused giving a satisfactory account of how he came by it in this case, because the accused says that he never did come by it. According to him, he never had the bundle, he was not the man who threw the bundle over the fence, and the police officer arrested him in mistake for the man whom they spotted