PATESARI MAHARAJ Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and sentence of the Supreme Court of Fiji D/ - 18 - 3 - 1946 whereby the appellant was found guilty of possession of a revolver without a licence contrary to S. 4 of the Arms Ordinance, 1937, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. The accused was acquitted on a charge of being in possession of explosives contrary to the Defence (Explosives) Order, 1944.

(2.) At the conclusion of the arguments, their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, and the conviction and sentence quashed, and they now state their reasons.

(3.) The charge under the Arms Ordinance, 1937, related to the finding of a revolver in the bure annexed to the appellant's house by the police. The appellant, in his statement, admitted the finding of the revolver in the bure, but said that he did not know who placed it there, and that he knew nothing about the revolver; he suggested that some enemy of his might have planted it upon him. As no attempt was made to prove how the revolver came into the possession of the accused or to show that he was ever seen in possession of it, this denial deserved, their Lordships think, rather more consideration than it received from the learned Judge in his charge to the Assessors. He seems to have relied entirely on S. 37 of the Ordinance, which provides, that the occupier of any house, or premises in which any arms shall be found, shall be deemed, until the contrary is proved, to be the possessor of such arms for the purpose of the Ordinance, without considering whether there was evidence that the burden under that section had been discharged.