JUDGMENT

Ali J:

This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the Magistrate at Batu Pahat whereby the respondent, who was charged with an offence under s. 4(1) (c) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, 1953, was acquitted and discharged without his defence being called.

The events in the course of the proceedings which led to the acquittal of the respondent were somewhat peculiar. The trial Magistrate having considered that it was necessary for a list of exhibits required to be prepared under s. 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be produced allowed a prosecution witness to be recalled to give evidence of the list. Soon after this at the request of the respondent, who indicated that he wished to consult a lawyer, the trial Magistrate adjourned the case to 28 August 1962, for continued hearing. When the case came up again before him the trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent holding, inter alia , that it was highly irregular for the witness to have been recalled. This, in my view, was surprising because before granting leave to recall a witness, the trial Magistrate must have considered whether by granting the leave the respondent would be prejudiced in