Mahende Isanchu v. R., Crim. App. 269-M-68; 23/9/68; Seaton, J.

Mahende Isanchu v. R., Crim. App. 269-M-68; 23/9/68; Seaton, J.

Accused was convicted of unlawful possession of “moshi” contrary to s. 36(1)(2) of the Local Liquor Ordinance, Cap. 77. None of the prosecution witnesses were expert in identifying moshi nor did they describe in detail the appearance of the liquid allegedly found in accused ’s home. However the accused stated: “The moshi is not mine and was found in a house which has no owner which is not mine. I saw the moshi. I admit that it is moshi.”

            Held: Conviction quashed. The accused “was not apparently more qualified than any one else to testify what was the nature of the liquid …… His “admission” cannot, therefore, be taken to supply the defect or gap in the prosecution case.