JUDGMENT
MANYO-PLANGE J.
There is no merit in this appeal, but unfortunately the learned magistrate committed an irregularity in hearing the evidence of one witness in the absence of the accused. This he had no jurisdiction to do. He purported to have acted under section 166 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance but that section only empowers him to act as he did when the charge is a misdemeanour and not a felony as in this case. This lack of jurisdiction in my view vitiates the whole of the proceedings and invalidates ab initio the conviction and sentence. Council for the Crown has referred me to the case of R. v. Smith (1) and section 355 of the Criminal Procedure ,Ordinance but neither in my view helps. R. v. Smith deals with the admissibility of depositions of a dead deponent and section 355 does not in my opinion cover irregularities and omissions which affect jurisdiction. This is in my view borne out by the cases of R. v. Gee and Others (2) and R. v. Samuels (3). The convictio…