Spenser Wilkinson J:

The first appellant was a juvenile and was charged in the Juvenile Court with assisting in carrying on a 100 number lottery and a1,000 number lottery.She claimed trial and after hearing the evidence the Juvenile Court made an order for a fine of $1,000 to be paid by the father or the brother of the appellant.The second appellant was the father of the first appellant.

The first point taken by Mr. Lim Kheng Kooi, who appeared for both appellants, was that the order for the fine to be paid by the juvenile's brother was irregular.With this submission I agree, as I know of no provision in the Juvenile Courts Ordinance which enables the Court to fine anyone but the parent or guardian of the offender.This, however, was a small matter and could easily have been dealt with by varying the Court's order so as to exclude the brother.

A more substantial ground of appeal was that the father was not present at the hearing; that he was not given any opportunity of being heard; and in particular, that he was given no opportunity of satisfying the Court under the provisions of sub-section (1) of s. 13 of the Juvenile Courts Ordinance that he had not conducted to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child.

In this connection I feel bound to point out that the record in this case is very unsatisfactory in many respects.The case came before the Juvenile Court first on 25 September 1954 when the then President made the following note:

Accused charged.

Claims trial.

Che Mohamed Noor unable to proceed.

To 2.10.54 for hearing.

Immediately following this entry comes the evidence of the 1st Prosecution Witness.There is nothing in this part of the record to show upon what date the hearing took place, who the Advisers were, or who was present.It is true that the date on which this evidence was taken can be inferred by reference to the Charge Sheet, which shows that the second hearing was, in fact, on 2 October 1954; but it would have been preferable if the date had been inserted as part of the written record; and there certainly should have been a note to show who was present at the hearing.There should also in my opinion have been a note stating who had been chosen as Advisers.

Whilst there is nothing specifically laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code as to exactly how much of this kind of information should be recorded in a Juvenile Court case I should have thought that it was established as a matter of practice that the names of the parties and Counsel present (if any) would be noted, as well as the names of the Advisers.This is always done in the High Court in trials with Assessors, although there is no specific section of the law which enjoins this. I am aware that there is a space on the Charge Sheet for the insertion of the names of the Prosecuting Officer and Defending Counsel, but these names often change at subsequent hearings and in any event special considerations arise in a case before a Juvenile Court.

It is true that the procedure in Juvenile Courts is governed by the Criminal Procedure Code as modified or extended by the Juvenile Courts Ordinance so that in a sense trials before these Courts are theoretically "summary trials"; nevertheless I take the view that it would be in accordance with the spirit of the Juvenile Courts Ordinance that the atmosphere of a Juvenile Court should have some at least of the elements associated with the manner in which the Courts of Chancery deal with infants in civil cases and that special care should be taken to ensure that all proper parties are before the Court and have the fullest opportunity of being heard. I feel sure that this is usually done but I would emphasise the importance of making it appear on the record that it has been done.

In his grounds of judgment the learned President says the offender was present with her parents and so was the Probation Officer.Counsel for the appellants, however, informed me and the father subsequentl