Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 106,114

(a) Burden of proof--   Offence of cheating-Prosecution to prove falsity of representation-No burden on accused to prove that there had been no deceit-[Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 106 and 114, Illus. (e)]-(Singapore case).   The appellant (accused) was charged with attempting to cheat one H by representing to him that she was able to induce Magistrate M to show favour to him in connection with a pending case of unlawful possession of opium, and thereby dishonestly attempted to induce H to deliver two thousand five hundred dollars to her.   Held, that falsity of the representation made by the appellant that she could induce the Magistrate to show favour was, under the relevant sections of the Penal Code of Singapore, a necessary ingredient of the charge.   It was for the prosecution to establish falsity of representation made by the accused. Section 107, Singapore Evidence Ordinance [=S. 106) Evidence Act (I of 1872)] placed no burden upon the appellant to prove that there had been no deceit. The burden was on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that there had been.   Nor could S. 115 of the Singapore Ordinance [S. 114 Illus. (e), Evidence Act (I of 1872)] be relied upon to establish deceit.   In the absence of such proof, the appellant was entitled to acquittal so far as the offence of cheating was concerned, whatever other offence (attempting to obtain illegal gratification) the accused might have committed.   Attygalle v. The King 1936 A C 338 rel.   (b) Cheating---   Representation made as result of error of judgment does not amount to deceit.   (c) Privy Council---   Not a Court of Criminal Appeal-Will not interfere in every case of error of Law-Principal ingredient of offence not proved-Privy Council will interfere.   The Judicial Committee is not a Court of Criminal Appeal, and every error of law would not justify an interference.   Where, however, there was no evidence against the accused on a principal ingredient of the offence of attempting to cheat, viz., that the representation made was false, the case came within range of cases in which their Lordships would interfere.  …