JUDGMENT

Hashim J:

The appellant was charged under s. 4(1)(c) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance 1953. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to a fine of $2,000 or six months imprisonment. He appealed against conviction and sentence.

Inche Isahak for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the expert witness was scanty and not sufficient for the learned Magistrate to come to a finding whether the document's found related to 1000 characters lottery. I agree with Inche Isahak that the expert witness could have given his evidence more coherently and I allowed the appeal. However I found that taken as a whole there was sufficient evidence to warrant a retrial and I therefore directed that the case be retried before another Magistrate.

May I, with respect, suggest that to avoid confusion the expert witness should give his evidence as follows. He should first state his qualifications as an expert. He should then state that he has given evidence as an expert in such cases and that his evidence has been accepted by the Courts. He should then proceed to describe the various documents and give his reasons why in his opinion they relate to characters lottery. The trial Magistrate must then come to a finding that he either accepts or rejects the evidence of the expert witness vis-a-vis characters lottery. In this case the trial Magistrate did not come to any finding but merely stated what the expert evidence was.

The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence set aside and the case be retried before another Magistrate.

Appeal allowed.

Re-trial ordered.