Ong Hock Sim FJ:

The accused, Mr. T N Nathan, was charged in the sessions Court, Georgetown on a charge under s. 4(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (No 42) of 1961) and, after a somewhat lengthy trial, was acquitted and discharged on 10 January 1972 without his defence being called at the close of the prosecution.

Despite his acquittal, the accused was dissatisfied with the judgment or order of the learned president because of his remark to the effect that the acquittal was "on purely technical grounds" and with other observations made in the grounds of decision. A cross-appeal was also filed by the learned deputy but as no petition was lodged within the time prescribed by s. 302 was deemed to have been withdrawn pursuant to sub-section (8).

On 8 April the accused appeared in person to apply for a postponement of the hearing of the appeal to a date some six weeks later to enable him to engage a Counsel in view of the lengthy record of 137 pages.

I drew the attention of the accused to s. 302 Criminal Procedure Code (SS Cap. 21) which provides for an appeal by any person dissatisfied with any judgment, sentence or order pronounced in a criminal case and to s. 300 wh