Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 26 August 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGHC 190 |
Defendant Counsel | Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck SC and Stanley Kok (Attorney-General's Chambers),K Anparasan (KhattarWong) |
Subject Matter | Professional conduct,Application for reinstatement to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore,Whether applicant fit to be restored to the Roll,Legal Profession,Section 102 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 03 September 2009 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Vergis S Abraham and Vikna Rajah (Drew & Napier LLC) |
26 August 2009 |
Judgment reserved. |
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court):
Introduction
3 Following his conviction, the Law Society applied to the Court of Three Judges (“the Court”), requiring the Applicant to show cause why he should not be disciplined under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed). On 17 May 1996, the Court, having heard the Law Society and the Applicant, held him to have displayed an “extreme defect in character” and, pursuant to the powers conferred under s 83, struck him off the Roll. The Court’s judgment relating to the striking-off order may be found in The Law Society of Singapore v Kalpanath Singh s/o Ramraj Singh
Background facts
You, Kalpanath Singh s/o Ramraj Singh, male, 47 years old, NRIC No 1116101/D, are charged that you, on or about 18 September 1987, at No 101A, Upper Cross Street, #12-17, People’s Park Centre, Singapore, did cheat one Madam Lee Sim Yow by deceiving her into believing that a sum of $5,000 was required to be paid into court as a deposit in S 2425/87 and thereby dishonestly induced the said Lee Sim Yow to deliver a sum of $5,000 to you, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). [And] You, Kalpanath Singh s/o Ramraj Singh, male, 47 years old, NRIC No1116101/D, are charged that you, on or about 21 January 1988, at No 101A, Upper Cross St, #12-17, People’s Park Centre, Singapore, did attempt to cheat one Madam Lee Sim Yow by deceiving her into believing that a sum of $5,000 was required to be paid into court as a deposit in S 2425/87 and thereby dishonestly induced the said Lee Sim Yow to deliver a sum of $5,000 to you, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 420 read with s 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). |
7 Though initially acquitted by the district court on the ground that the Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court, on appeal by the Public Prosecutor, overturned the ruling of the district court on 1 September 1995 and convicted the Applicant on the said two charges (see PP v Kalpanath Singh
The Applicant’s submissions
10 Over and above these considerations, the Applicant submitted that there were three “special circumstances” in relation to his application. First, he was advanced in years – at 67 years old, any deferment of his reinstatement would effectively act as a permanent bar from re-admission. Second, restrictions and conditions could be imposed on his practising certificate (see [11] below), if deemed necessary so as to protect public interest and maintain the reputation of the legal profession. Third, the Applicant, if reinstated, would re-join his erstwhile firm, M/s Kalpanath & Co, which is now run and managed by a daughter and her husband, alongside with other independent partners. This, the Applicant submitted, would provide familial support and serve as another safeguard against him faltering.
Law Society’s position
The Attorney-General’s objection
To continue reading
Request your trial