Callow J:

[1] This has been an unsatisfactory case. The offence is dated the 15th of October, 1948, and the accused was arrested the next day. Court form 192 attached to the Preliminary Inquiry in accordance with s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code then states he was discharged. Mr Boyle, Deputy Public Prosecutor, informed me that the accused had actually been arraigned before a Magistrate and discharged, the discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

[2] I do not know the reason for this or the nature of the charge preferred but a discharge amounting to an acquittal should be in exceptional circumstances. I presume the withdrawal was made by the prosecuting officer in accordance with section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This procedure may be caused by it becoming clear that the charge is not sustainable (Sohoni, 14th Edn p 650), or for reasons of expediency. The Court should record the reason, and the discharge should amount to an acquittal unless good cause is otherwise shown; an accused person is entitled to trial and determination; only in exceptional circumstances should the charge be permitted to remain indefinitely held against him.

[4] Now the next step in this unhappy case is that the accused was re-arrested on 9 February 1949 - nearly four months later. I do not know the cause for this action, it was not explained, nor have I had anything before to suggest that additional evidence, not forth-coming earlier, had come to light.

[5] It was then apparently decided to hold a preliminary inquiry and that took six weeks-until the 21st of March, 1949. There were only seven prosecution witnesses, and three of these were extremely short. Finally the proceedings were not received in this Registry until the 11th of April, 1949, nearly six months after the offence is dated. Such delays reflect no credit on Courts or Police.

[6] Before proceeding to the evidence there is another matter which must be mentioned. An accused person is entitled to a certified copy of the depositions on demand. Mr Lee Thean Chu for the accused did not himself apply for a copy; the accused made application on the 24th of April, 1949. In my view the committing Magistrate should enquire from the accused person on committal as to whether he requires a copy of the depositions so that he may have early opportunity to prepare his defence.

[7] Now the complainant (2 PW) was undoubtedly attacked by some one, and in his evidence he said at first that the accused came with two others and later he spoke of three others; he gave the names of two, Mat and Awang Dali. I understood from the Deputy Public Prosecutor that the two persons named were originally charged with the accused, yet they did not appear in the Court at all. It is very peculiar.

[8] In the witness box the complainant, who is an old man, gave his age as 70, and who on the night in question was alone on the little island of Pulau Bunting, said he was woken by the sound of a shot, followed by a demand to open the door. He therefore rose, lit his lamp Ex P1 which could only have afforded the barest glimmer, and started to open. The door was double and he first opened one side, then to open the other he moved h