Buttrose J:

This is an appeal against a conviction for cheating. The charge against the appellant was as follows:

That you, on or about 14 August 1962 at about 4.45 p.m. at No. 1 Brighton Crescent, Singapore, cheated one Low Chuck Song by deceiving him into believing that a Malayan Banking Ltd. cheque No. SB/RI 023085 for $6,750 tendered by you in payment for 45 sets of Philips Tape Recorders would be honoured and in so doing dishonestly induced the said Low Chuck Song to deliver to you 45 sets of Philips Tape Recorders valued at $6,750 which he would not have done had he not been so deceived and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 420 of the Penal Code.

The prosecution case was, in substance, that this was a cash transaction for the sale of 45 sets of Philips tape recorders by Allied Radio Corp., of which the complainant was the managing directors, to the appellant. The tape recorders were ordered by the appellant on the morning of 14 August 1962 and delivered that same afternoon between 4 and 5 o'clock.

A cash cheque for the sum of $6,750 also dated 14 August 1962 was handed over by the appellant to the complainant immediately after the goods had been delivered. The cheque was drawn by a third party and the complainant at first refused to accept it because it was not drawn by the appellant. On receiving an assurance from the appellant, backed up by other statements, that the cheque would be honoured the complainant accepted it. On the following morning 15 August 1962 the cheque was presented to the Bank and dishonoured and returned to the complainant.

Now it cannot, I think, be disputed that if a person gives a cheque in payment for goods and it is dishonoured and from the circumstances it can be presumed that he must have been aware that the cheque would be dishonoured, so that the failure to meet payment of the cheque was not accidental, he is guilty of cheating under s. 420 of the Penal Code.

What then was the evidence from which it could be presumed that the appellant must have known that the cheque would be dishonoured. It was supplied in the clearest possible terms by the evidence of Tan Ngi Ker. It is I think both appropriate and convenient to set out what the learned Magistrate had to say about this evidence.

The missing link in the Prosecution's case was supplied by the evidence of one Tan Ngi Ker (PW4). He was approached by the Appellant to do business of importing Hong Kong goods. On 31 July 1962 Tan was given a document and $10 and taken to the Registry of Companies to register the firm of Chaio Nam Co., doing business at No. 17 Nankin Street, Singapore. No business was ever transacted there by the Appellant and/or Tan. In his evidence Tan said 'I have been cycling past the shop on more than ten occasions and on each occasion he was never there. Accused pointed shop to me but never brought me there. I have never seen any signboard there.' The day after Chaio Nam Co. was registered, appellant took Tan to the Malayan Bank at South Bridge Road where an account was opened in Tan's name. Appellant handed $500 cash to Tan to be deposited. When they left the Bank Tan was asked to sign five to six blank cheques. After signing the appellant kept the cheque book. A month later Tan was given $120 by the appellant "for expenses' and asked to sign three or four more blank cheques. Tan identified his signature on the cheques presented to Court, including the one dated 14 August 1962.

It is clear that the cheque in question dated 14 August 1962, was one of the cheques signed in blank by Tan Ngi Ker at the request of the appellant. Now, if that evidence was accepted by the learned Magistrate it established, in my judgment, beyond any reasonable doubt that the offence of cheating had been committed. The firm of Chaio Nam Co. which never conducted any business was a front for the appellant's activities and Tan Ngi Ker simply a convenient and complacent dummy whose name was used to register the