ار
**
}
208
Cheung was not given an opportunity of seeing the Petitioner
at the Central Police Station till the identification took
place.
It is absolutely untrue that the Chief Inspec
tor on the Petitioner's first visit to the Station pointed
out the Petitioner to a Chinaman, and asked the Chinaman if he
could identify the Petitioner. I attach a report from Mr,
Mackle on the subject.
It is not true as stated in para. 16 that the
Petitioner was twice paraded for identification by the same
Chinaman.
He was paraded once for identification with
40 other Sergeants and Constables, and Mak Cheung on that oc-
casion had an opportunity of identifying him. In the notes of
evidence under date of the 12th.March, Mak Cheung explains how
it was that he did not identify the Petitioner on that occa-
sion, and I have assigned another possible reason in my mi-
nute of the 15th.March.
He was again paraded on the occasion of the
identification of some other Indian Sergeants by Un Kin, a per-
fectly different person. The Petitioner was only paraded on
the second occasion to mix up with the Sergeants who were
identified then, and not for the purpose of being himself iden-
tified.
As I have remarked in my minute of the 15th.
March the case against the Petitioner is weakened by the fact
that he was not identified by Mak Cheung on the first occa-
sion.
Nevertheless