Public Prosecutor v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date21 February 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] SGHC 44
Date21 February 2013
Docket NumberCriminal Revision No 23 of 2012
Published date22 February 2013
Plaintiff CounselAdrian Loo and Marcus Foo (Attorney-General's Chambers)
Hearing Date18 January 2013
Defendant CounselS K Kumar (S K Kumar Law Practice LLP)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterCriminal Procedure and Sentencing
Choo Han Teck J:

This is a petition for criminal revision brought by the Public Prosecutor to amend a charge under which the respondent was convicted and to record a conviction for the amended charge. The respondent was convicted of the following charge in DAC 15898/2002 (the “Original Charge”) after pleading guilty on 10 May 2002:

You

NAME: SHAIK ALAUDEEN S/O HASAN BASHAR

... are charged that you, on the 24th day of March 2002, in Singapore, did consume a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of The First Schedule of The Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, Morphine, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b) and punishable under Section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

[emphasis added]

The respondent was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for the Original Charge and has served his sentence in full. The Public Prosecutor requested me to exercise my revisionary powers under s 268 read with s 256(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) to amend the Original Charge of consuming a controlled drug under s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) to a charge of consuming a specified drug under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA and to record a conviction on the amended charge. Section 8(b) of the MDA provides as follows: Except as authorised by this Act, it shall be an offence for a person to —

...

smoke, administer to himself or otherwise consume — a controlled drug, other than a specified drug; or a specified drug. At the date of the commission of the offence, 24 March 2002, morphine was classified as a specified drug.

The respondent is presently charged with six charges of consuming a specified drug under s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed). Section 33A states:

33A.—(1) Where a person who has not less than —

...

one previous admission and one previous conviction for consumption of a specified drug under section 8(b);

...

is convicted of an offence under section 8(b) for consumption of a specified drug or an offence of failure to provide a urine specimen under section 31(2), he shall on conviction be punished with — imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 7 years; and not less than 3 strokes and not more than 6 strokes of the cane.

The six pending charges are brought under s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) on the basis that the respondent had one previous drug rehabilitation centre admission for the consumption of morphine and one conviction under the Original Charge for consumption of a specified drug, ie, morphine.

The Deputy Public Prosecutor (“DPP”) submitted that the conviction under the Original Charge was erroneous as the court had no jurisdiction under s 8(b)(i)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bhavashbhai s/o Baboobhai v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 17 March 2014
    ...powers: at [7] . (2) While the present application was factually different from the case of PP v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar[2013] 2 SLR 538 (‘Shaik Alaudeen’), both were similar in that both were unmeritorious. The application in Shaik Alaudeen,if allowed, would have caused prejudice t......
  • Addy Amin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 September 2016
    ...a “charge unknown to law”5 and defective.6 The Applicant sought to rely on Public Prosecutor v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar [2013] 2 SLR 538 (“Shaik Alaudeen”), and Public Prosecutor v Ong Gim Hoo [2014] 3 SLR 8 (“Ong Gim Hoo”) and sought to distinguish these cases from Bhavashbhai s/o B......
  • PP v Ong Gim Hoo
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 April 2014
    ...purpose of enhanced sentencing: at [13] .] Bhavashbhai s/o Baboobhai v PP [2014] 2 SLR 1281 (folld) PP v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar [2013] 2 SLR 538 (folld) PP v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar [2013] SGDC 159 (refd) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 256, 269 Criminal Pr......
  • Public Prosecutor v Ong Gim Hoo
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 April 2014
    ...decisions on point. These are Bhavashbhai s/o Baboobhai v PP [2014] SGHC 46 (“Bhavashbhai”) and PP v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar [2013] 2 SLR 538 (“Shaik”). Both cases involved applications to amend previous convictions. In Bhavashbhai, the application was brought by the accused. When h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...revision and amendment of charges 14.1 Public Prosecutor v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar[2013] 2 SLR 538 (‘Shaik Alaudeen’) involved the matter of a criminal revision filed by the Public Prosecutor pursuant to s 256(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (‘old CPC’) seeki......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...also the judge presiding over the proceedings in Bhavashbhai s/o Baboobhai, in Public Prosecutor v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar[2013] 2 SLR 538 (Shaik Alaudeen) (a discussion of Shaik Alaudeen can be found at (2013) 14 SAL Ann Rev 302 at 302303, paras 14.114.2). In gist, in Shaik Alaudee......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...102 Addy Amin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2016] 5 SLR 801 at [34]–[37]. 103 Public Prosecutor v Shaik Alaudeen s/o Hasan Bashar [2013] 2 SLR 538; Bhavashbhai s/o Baboobhai v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 1281; Public Prosecutor v Ong Gim Hoo [2014] 3 SLR 8. 104 (2013) 14 SAL Ann Rev 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT