[1] I had called for the records in this case. The three accused were charged under s 379 of the Penal Code for having committed theft of 800 cocoanuts said to be valued at $104. At the end of the prosecution case the learned magistrate ruled that there was a prima facie case for the accused to answer, but in the very next breath he said:

[3] With the greatest respect to the learned magistrate I have to observe that he failed to apply and totally ignored the very elementary principles which a court of criminal justice must strictly adhere to. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the court is not entitled merely for the sake of the joy of asking for an explanation or the gratification of knowing what the accused have got to say about the prosecution evidence to rule that there is a case for the accused to answer. The proof of a case against the accused depends for its support not upon the absence or weakness of the explanation on his part but on the positive affirmative evidence of his guilt given by the prosecution. Numerous rules have from time to time been suggested by the courts when dealing with the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The following principles are not only sound but well recognised in practice:

[4] A conviction cannot be sustained even if the court is satisfied that the prosecution story "may be true" unless and until it is found that the prosecution story "must be true." The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial. If the learned magistrate was not satisfied with the case of the prosecution it was his duty to acquit and discharge the accused at the close of the prosecution case. The falsity of the defence does not relieve the prosecution from proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt in a criminal charge is always on the prosecution except in certain cases with which we are not concerned here.

[5] As the learned magistrate seems to have ignored the very basic principle of criminal law, it may perhaps serve a useful purpose to remind those administering justice in the lower courts that evidence discloses a prima facie case when it is such that if uncontradicted and if believed it will be sufficient to prove the case against the accused.

[6] The following definition of "reasonable doubt" is often quoted:

[7] It has again been said that "'reasonable doubt' is the doubt which makes you hesitate as to the correctness of the conclusion which you reach. If under your oaths and upon your consciences, after you have fully investigated the evidence