IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecutions right not call a witness from whom a police statements have taken must always be guided by its duty to discharge the onus of proof.

JUDGMENT

Salleh Abas L. P. (delivering the judgment of the Court). The applicant was the former manager of FELDA Scheme at Kampong L.B.J., Labu (the Scheme). He came to the Scheme in 1973 having been transferred from Bukit Senawang Utara. As the manager of the Scheme, be took charge of financial matters, maintained cash books and held the key to the safe which was in his office. On November 1, 1976 he was to go on transfer to Tanjong Malim and he was succeeded by a new manager, Haji Hassan. As the handing over of responsibilities was not completed the applicant still remained at the Scheme. However, prior to this between October 25, 1976 and November 30, 1976 he attended a course at the University Pertanian Serdang.

2. The Scheme has an account with Malayan Banking. On November 3, 1976 the applicant withdrew $ 70,000/- cash from the bank.

3. On November 5, 1976 the applicant was working late and did not leave the office until past 8.00 p.m. Omar bin Yahya, the watchman, testified that when he reported for duty that evening, at 6.00 p.m., he saw many people at the office, and that with permission of the applicant he went home to have a bath. When he came back to the office at about 8 00 p.m. he found the applicants office still open and that the applicant was still in it. He heard a sound coming from the applicants office as if a table was being dragged on the floor. At that time the door of the applicants room was open, though its spring door was closed. After the dragging sound, lights were switched off, the door was looked and the applicant came out of his room and met watchman. After five or six minutes conversation between them the applicant left for his house and the watchman was left alone to guard the office. About half an hour later the watchman locked the offices main door and went to a coffee stall nearby. After having his coffee he returned to the office. About an hour later, Assistant Manager Hamzah came into the office to collect his work book and left. After Hamzah had left the watchman again locked the main door and went to the same coffee stall. When he came back an, hour later, he opened the main door, went in and locked it from inside. Whilst inside the office he noticed that the phone which was located between the applicants room and the general office has covered by a book. Access to the phone from the applicants room was by means of a small opening of about 8” x 12” on the wall of the applicants room. The opening was so small that it was not possible for anyone to enter the room through it. However, suspecting that someone had entered the room, the watchman shone his torchlight into the appellants room and there he saw the door of the safe open and the cement wall which, held the cross bar securing the safe on the left side broken. The door of the room was nevertheless still locked, but one of the windows was open. He did not notice any of the windows open earlier, during his trips to and from the office and the coffee stall.

4. On discovering this incident the watchman called the applicant who came and opened his office room with his own key and then examined the safe. After this, both went to the Police post at the Scheme to lodge a report.

5. Inspector Wan Abdul Ghany, P.W. 4, the I.O. in the case visited the applicants office-room the next day, on November 6, 1976 at 8.10 a.m. He did not see any sign of the breaking-in nor any sign of the safe being forced open. He also noticed that the wire-grills on top of the room were not forced open. In fact the safe could only be opened with its own key which was then being kept by the applicant. Some coins amounting to $ 509.354 were found in the safe.

6. Adnan bin Mohd. Ali, P.W. 10, who was an officer in the Treasury Division of FELDA Head-quarters, Kuala Lumpur, said that upon examination of the financial records of the Scheme as on November 6. 1976, the amount of cash which the Scheme should have had was $ 24,415.22 and that since there was only $ 509.35, the