JUDGMENT

Horne J:

In this appeal the evidence of identification is unsatisfactory. The stolen bicycle dynamo and lamp are articles in common use and scratches resulting from use can hardly be accepted as distinguishing marks.

Further, having regard to the time elapsing between the theft and the identification viz. seven weeks, the presumption arising from recent possession can hardly apply.

Even if the goods are satisfactorily identified as having been stolen seven weeks beforehand then the explanation offered by the accused was not treated fairly by the Magistrate. It is not necessary for him to convince the Magistrate of the truth of his explanation; it is sufficient if the explanation may reasonably be true even if the Magistrate is not convinced of its truth-Rex v. Schama, 11 Cr App R 45. Moreover there was no evidence to rebut this explanation. The Magistrate's mind may have been affected by the evidence of Long Che bin Naim (Probationary Inspector). His evidence being a statement made in the course of the investigation was inadmissible as part of the evidence of the prosecution - (s 113(i) Criminal Procedure Code).

There is no evidence of a dishonest retention of stolen property. The conviction is quashed.

It does not appear to me that a Magistrate complies with s. 307 (iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires him to give the "Grounds of Decision" by stating "I believe the evidence of the prosecution" . . . . "I disbelieve the evidence of the accused." I think the Magistrate should state, except in the simplest of cases and they usually are not the subject of appeal, the reasons why he believed or disbelieved the evidence in question.

Conviction quashed.