Spenser Wilkinson J:

The appellant was charged in the Sessions Court as follows:

That you Chye Ah San male Khek on 19 January 1954 at paya Terubong Road, Penang, were knowingly concerned in dealing intoxicating liquor (sic) to wit, two tins containing three gallons of intoxicating liquor on which the Excise Duty leviable by law has not been proved to have been paid amounting to $71.19 with intent to defraud the Government of the Excise Duty amounting to $71 thereon and you have thereby committed an offence under s. 62(d) of the Excise Enactment Cap. 133 under punishable under s. 62 of the same Enactment.

The case for the prosecution was that the appellant received from a certain Chinese the two tins of liquor referred to in the charge and then gave that liquor to another Chinese for sale on his behalf The evidence in support of this charge consisted solely of certain statements made by the appellant to Customs Officers and proof, by analysis, that the contents of the two tins (which the appellant in one of those statements admitted he had dealt with) was intoxicating liquor.

Three statements were made by the appellant The first was made at the house where he was first interviewed by Customs Officers to whom he opened the front door In regard to this statement Mr. Caiger PW1 stated in evidence:

I asked if he had sold any illicit liquor to another person nearby that evening The accused said he had He agreed he helped to load this liquor on to a car.

This statement, however, was made through an interpreter, PW2 who stated in evidence:

I asked the accused if he had sold any liquor that night to a male Chinese who lived nearby. . . . . The accused said he had sold some liquor. I asked the accused if he had helped the Chinese to carry the liquor on to a car He said he had done so.

As the interpreter said nothing about illicit liquor it must be assumed that the word "illicit" was never interpreted to the appellant, and his admission, if admissible in evidence, must be limited to that given in answer to the interpreter.

The next statement was made at the Customs Office This is sufficiently brought out in the evidence of the interpreter as follows:

The accused was taken to the Customs Office, Penang and he was shown Exhs. P1 and P2 which he stated he had handed to the Chinese.

The third statement was recorded by Senior Customs Officer, Mr. Sheik Yusoff bin Sheik Hussian, PW5 at 2.50 a.m. some four hours after the earlier statements had been made and put in evidence as Exh. P5. It was taken in the presence of three other Chinese alleged to have been involved in the case Before recording the statement the appellant was given what has been called a warning in the following terms:

Under s. 51 of the Excise Enactment Chapter 133 you are bound to give certain information which I require if it is in your power to give it. It is my duty to warn you that any statement you make will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.

The relevant part of the statement is as follows:

Yesterday evening, 19 January 1954 a Chinese stranger came to my house and brought with him four tin and one rubber tube of Chinese liquor and offered me for sale. I agreed to buy and paid him $44. . . . . On the same evening I gave all the liquor to Ah Yone and requested him to sell the liquor for me. This is all I have to say. I now say that I only handed to Ah Yong (pointing Ah Yong) two small tins of liquor. I have no idea about the other containers of liquor.

The exact words of s. 51 of the Excise Enactment are very material to this case and I therefore set them out here-

1

51. Every person required by a Senior Excise Officer to give any information on any subject which is such officer's duty to enquire into under this Enactment and which information it is in his power to give should be bound to give such information

Section 50(ii) is as follows:

50.(ii)Any person furnishing as true information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false shall he guilty of an off