1937   Present: Abrahams C.J.

VANDENDRIESEN v. HOUWA UMMA

161-P. C. Kandy, 51,644.

Criminal procedure-Reception of evidence after close of prosecution-Identification of accused-Proper method to be followed.

Evidence for the prosecution should not be taken after the case for the prosecution has been closed when such evidence would have the effect either of filling the gap left in the evidence or resolving some doubt in favour of the prosecution.

 Identification of an arrested person must be carried out in such a way that not only must the identifying witness be given every reasonable chance of being right but must also be given every reasonable chance of being wrong.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Kandy.

Gratiaen, for accused, appellant.

 Pulle, C.C., for the Crown.

 August 4, 1937. ABRAHAMS C.J.-

The appellant was convicted by the Police Magistrate, Kandy, on November 20 last year for the offence of having in her possession on May 18, 1936, 1,286 grains of opium without having obtained a licence, in breach of section 74 (5) (a) of Ordinance No. 17 of 1929 as amended by Ordinance No. 43 of 1935. She was f