JUDGMENT

Hill J:

The appellant was convicted in the Sungei Patani Sessions Court on two charges contravening ss. 13 (1) and 14 (1) of the Rubber Supervision Enactment No. 103 (Kedah).

The main and indeed the only ground of appeal that I need consider is that set out in para. 3 (b) & (c) in the Petition of Appeal as follows :-

That at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution the Learned President should have acquitted and discharged the Appellant as the Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the Appellant.

The Learned President was wrong in stating that Having satisfied myself that Prosecution had made out a prima facie case, I then exercised my discretion under the first part of S. 425 of the Criminal Procedure Code and required the Licensing Authority to send the Officer-in-charge of the Licenses to give evidence". The President held that the Prosecution had established a prima facie case only after the Court Witness No. 1 Zakir bin Abdullah had given his evidence. In fact the Learned President called Court Witness No. 1 Zakir bin Abdullah as a witness to supplement the case for the Prosecution so as to establish a prima facie case against the Appellan