Ong J:

This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against an order of the Magistrate at Kajang acquitting the respondent of a charge, under s. 35(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958, of dangerous driving of motor- lorry No BD-5751 at the 11'be mile Kajang Road.

The learned Magistrate's undue haste to be done with the case is clearly the reason for his falling into error. This is obvious from the record, where, after the evidence of three prosecution witnesses had been taken, the following notes were made by the Magistrate:

At this stage of the proceedings the Prosecution informs the Court that it cannot go on with the case any further as the Investigation Officer and the Police Photographer are not available. They had gone to the High Court for a case. The other witnesses also not available although subpoenas have been issued for their attendance. Prosecution applies for an adjournment to another date.

I refused application for an adjournment of the hearing to another date, and acquitted and discharged the defendant."

In his grounds of judgment, completed nearly a month after this order of acquittal, the learned Magistrate himself referred to the provisions of s.