Buttrose J (delivering oral judgment):

This is an appeal from a decision of the Magistrate's Court convicting the appellant of the offence of obscuring the permanent number of his motor sampan No SC 9887 by covering it with cargo under r. 66(2) of the Singapore Port Rules 1936 and imposing a fine of $25 under s. 419(2) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Ch 207).

The rule under which the appellant was charged was made in pursuance of the rule making power contained in s. 462 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance and not in s. 419. The offence with which the appellant was charged is punishable under s. 463 and not s. 419(2) as alleged. The charge therefore is bad in law.

In the second place the word "obscured" in r. 66(2) is used in association with the words "removed" and "altered" all of which connote a deliberate and intentional concealment of the boat's number.

It was not suggested in the present case that there was any intentional or deliberate obscurement of the number by the appellant. The motor sampan was carrying a cargo of 200 drums of oil and as the result of their stacking the number was temporarily hidden from view. Once the drums were off-loaded the number could be clearly seen.

In the particular circumstances of this case the appellant has not, in my judgment, committed any offence under r. 62(2).

The appeal must be allowed and the conviction and sentence quashed. The fine of $25 if paid must be refunded to the appellant.

Appeal allowed.