Section 192: Unlawful possession of wood—The appellant was prosecuted, under

192. Unlawful possession of wood—The appellant was prosecuted, under section 5 (2) of the Forest, Mountain and River Reserves Ordinance (now Act) which enacts that “any person who . . . is found in possession of any wood and shall not satisfactorily account for such possession” . . . shall be guilty of an offence. It was contended on his behalf that the enactment was unconstitutional as offending against the presumption of innocence laid down in section 10 (2) (a) of the Constitution. HELD (i) by Garrioch, SPJ: It is fairly possible to read the impugned enactment as requiring the prosecution to allege and prove in the first instance that the wood found in the possession of the accused party has been obtained in contravention of the provisions of the law before any question of justification will arise; (ii) by Rault, J: The enactment does not merely require the accused to prove particular facts: it places upon him the burden of proving a general, unconditional innocence, without even first calling upon the prosecution to prove any suspicious or sinister circumstances. It is therefore contrary to the Constitution, and must be struck down. Velle Vindron v R (1973).