This is an appeal against the decision of the district judge given on 2 February 1987 in which, upon application by the prosecution, he made an order under s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Ed) discharging the above-named appellant, such discharge not to amount to an acquittal.

The material facts that led to this appeal are briefly these. The appellant, who was a police constable in the Singapore Police Force, was first charged on 17 July 1985 with two offences punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1985 Ed) in DAC 6932/85 and DAC 6933/85 respectively. On the same day also, one Lim Chee Leng (Lim) was charged in DAC 6879/85 with abetting the appellant in the commission of the offence in DAC 6932/85 as well as with another offence under s 170 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Ed) in MAC 17949/85. All these charges were mentioned in the subordinate court, Court No 26, on several occasions until 25 September 1985, when the charges in question against both of them, the appellant and Lim, were set down for trial jointly on 21 April 1986.

On 21 April 1986, before the trial commenced, counsel for Lim informed the court that Lim was not well and would have to see a doctor and accordingly sought an adjournment which was granted; the case against Lim was adjourned to 12 May 1986 for mention. The prosecution, however, applied to proceed on the charge against the appellant in DAC 6933/85 only and to have the charge in DAC 6932/85 stood down, which was also granted by the court. The trial on the first charge then proceeded. At the close of the case for the prosecution, the learned district judge found that the prosecution had failed to make out a case against the appellant, which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted of that charge. As for the charge in DAC 6932/85, it was set down for further mention on 12 May 1986, which was the same date the charge against Lim would be mentioned.

On 12 May 1986, the charge against the appellant in DAC 6932/856 and the two charges against Lim in DAC 6879/85 and MAC 17949/85 respectively were mentioned. The deputy public prosecutor applied for adjournment for six months on the ground that a material witness was then not available. The court was informed that efforts were being made to trace the witness and the charges were still under consideration. There was no objection to the application from counsel for the defence. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the cases were set down for further mention on 13 October 1986.

The cases against both the accused accordingly came on for mention on that day. The deputy public prosecutor informed the court that the material witness had not been traced and all efforts were being made to trace him so that the charges against both the accused could be proceeded with. In the circumstances, she applied for another adjournment for three months. This application, however, was opposed to by counsel for the accused on the ground that sufficient time had been given to the prosecution to trace the witness. Counsel submitted that it was quite obvious that the prosecution was unable to proceed against the accused at that stage; he also said that one of the complainants had died. He therefore applied for an order that each of the accused be discharged, such discharge to amount to an acquittal. The learned district judge decided in favour of the prosecutions application and adjourned the cases to 2 February 1987.

On 2 February 1987, upon the cases coming on for mention, the deputy public prosecutor applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal as the prosecution had still not been able to trace the material witness. She informed the court that the witness was known to have been employed in two places in Johore Bahru and efforts were being made with the assistance of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Malaysia to trace the witness and that the prosecution ha