Rigby J (delivering oral Judgment):

The appellant in this case was originally charged with being found gaming in a public place, contrary to the provisions of s. 7(2) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, 1953. At the hearing of the proceedings the prosecution produced a new charge charging him with the more serious, offence of promoting a gambling game, to wit, blangkas in a public place, contrary to the provisions for s. 8(1) of the Ordinance. Upon that charge he was convicted and fined the sum of $500. He now appeals against both the conviction and sentence.

The facts of the case were that acting on information received the Police proceeded to a place on the Alma Estate at about 10 O'clock at night and there they saw a group of persons apparently gaming near a zinc shed on the estate. On seeing the Police the persons took to their heels and ran away. The appellant was apprehended and a handkerchief containing the sum of $33,40 was found in his possession, together with a single dice. According to the evidence given before the learned Magistrate, and accepted by him, the dice was of a kind specially marked for the purpose of playing the game known as blangkas. At the scene of the incident were also found other instruments such as a specially marked chart, which made it apparent to the Magistrate, upon the evidence heard by him, that the game of blangkas was, in fact, being played at the time the Police arrived on the scene.

On the sole evidence of the possession of the single dice which was found in the appellant's pocket and the money in his possession, the learned Magistrate convicted him of the charge preferred against him of promoting this game, contrary to the provisions of s. 8(1). In doing so, he acted upon the presumption arising out of s. 8(2) of the Ordinance, which provides that:

Any person who brings to, or has in his possession at or near, a place where such an offence as aforesaid is committed any instruments or appliances for gaming, shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have promoted the commission of an offence punishable under the last preceding Section.

On the wording of that section, as it stands, it is certainly not clear to me whether the possession of a single dice in the circumstances in which it was found upon the offender made him guilty, in the absence of any proof by him to the contrary, of the more serious offence of promoting the game, rather than of simply taking part in the game which would be an offence covered by s. 7(2) of the Ordinance. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the appellant's story as to what he was doing at the scene of the incident, and there was undoubtedly evidence which certainly justified him in so disbelieving the appellant's story. But on the facts of the case I am not entirely satisfied that the evidence, and the presumption upon which the learned Magistrate acted, justified a conviction of promoting, as distinct from the lesser offence of gaming in a public place contrary to the provisions of s. 7(2) of the Ordinance. I therefore set aside the conviction under s. 8(1) and substitute therefor a conviction of gaming in a public place under s. 7(2) of the Ordinance.

The maximum penalty for promoting a gaming offence is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine of $5,000 or both such imprisonment and fine. On the other hand the maximum penalty for gaming in a public place is a fine not exceeding $250. In the circumstances of this case I accordingly set aside the fine of $500 and substitute therefore a fine of $100.

I am told by Mrs. PT Oon, who appears for the appellant, that the Police have taken the finger-prints of the appellant. I do not know whether a conviction under s. 8(1) empowers the Police to take the finger-prints, but having regard to the fact that the conviction has now been altered to the lesser offence under s. 7(2), unless there is any lawful authority which empowers the Police, upon a conviction for an offence