13 Jun 2003
HKSAR v. CHUNG KING KUI
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHUNG KING KUI
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA448/2003
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate erred in finding the presumption of possession under s24 applied to the appellant who had given credible evidence she had retired and was not carrying on the business so the presumption did not arise or was rebutted; and s33(2) could not be used to attribute an employee's knowledge to the appellant because that subsection applies to proceedings for or in connection with sale/exposure for sale or supply, not a pure possession charge under s23(1). Consequently the conviction could not be sustained.