Rigby J:

This case has very properly been referred by the learned Magistrate to this Court with a view to revision. The defendant was charged under s. 120(2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958, with contravening the conditions of an Emergency Permit granted to him in respect of goods vehicle P 2348. Under the conditions of the Permit the maximum laden weight which the vehicle was permitted to carry was 143 cwts. On the day and at the place in question it was, in fact, found that its maximum laden weight was eight tons 1 cwt.

The brief facts of the case were that acting on information received an Enforcement Officer of the Road Transport Department set out to intercept the defendant's lorry. Either accidentally or by design - and presumably the latter - the Officer did not, in fact, intercept the lorry until it had proceeded to the New Ferry Terminal and was actually standing on the weigh-bridge where it was weighed for the purpose of assessing the fare for the ferry crossing to Butterworth. The Officer stood by while the lorry was, in fact, weighed and he then noticed from the dial on the weigh-bridge that it registered eight tons 1 cwt. The weighing clerk attached to the Penang Port Commission gave evidence as to weighing the lorry. He described the procedure followed and produced the original weighing ticket which showed the weight of the lorry to be 8 tons 1 cwt. He further produced a certificate of accuracy as to the weighbridge itself.

At the close of the case for the prosecution defending Counsel submitted that there was no case to answer since the provisions of s. 53 of the Road Traffic Ordinance had not been complied with. That section merely provides that any Road Transport Officer duly authorised In writing in that behalf by the Commissioner of Road Transport so to do, may require any person in charge of any motor vehicle to proceed forthwith to a weigh-bridge for the purpose of being weighed. The Enforcement Officer had apparently produced in evidence a letter purporting to be some form of authority under s. 53. The learned Magistrate was satisfied that the letter so produced was, in fact, not an authority to the Enforcement Officer within the meaning of s. 53. He accordingly ruled that since the Enforcement Officer was not in possession of the required authority in writing under s. 53 there was no case to answer, and he acquitted and discharged the defendant. Subsequently, on re-consideration, the learned Magistrate himself came to the conclusion that he had misdirected himself in law in that the provisions of s. 53 were wholly irrelevant to the facts of this case. I agree with that view. On the facts, it was quite clear that the vehicle had been weighed on an accurate weigh-bridge and that its laden weight was found to be in excess of that permitted under the conditions Of the Permit granted to the defendant. That was sufficient to constitute the offence charged. Whether or not the Enforcement Officer in question was the holder of any valid authority in writing from the Commissioner of Road Transport and whether or not he had required the defendant to proceed to the weigh-bridge for the purpose of being weighed were wholly irrelevant to the facts of the case. I, therefore, set aside the Order made by the learned Magistrate acquitting and discharging the defendant and direct that the case be remitted to the Magistrate for him to hear the defence.

Order accordingly.