Public Prosecutor v Kolandavelu
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1993 |
| Date | 19 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeal No 206/93/01 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1993] SGHC 170
Yong Pung How CJ
Magistrate's Appeal No 206/93/01
High Court
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Trials–Discharge not amounting to acquittal–Prosecution unable to proceed with case due to confusion on trial date–Prosecution sought adjournment–Accused granted discharge not amounting to acquittal–Whether court has jurisdiction to grant such discharge–Section 184 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)
On the day of trial, the Prosecution was unable to proceed and sought an adjournment. The reason given was that the Prosecution had confused the hearing date for this case with that for another case. The district judge granted the respondent a discharge not amounting to acquittal pursuant to s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed). The Prosecution appealed.
Held, allowing the appeal:
The court's jurisdiction to stay proceedings and to discharge a defendant under s 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code was contingent upon the Public Prosecutor informing the court that he would not further prosecute the defendant upon the charge. No such information was given in this case. On the contrary, the court was informed that the Prosecution intended to prosecute the respondent upon the charge, only not on the original trial date. Accordingly, the court had no such jurisdiction to stay proceedings and discharge the defendant under s 184: at [3] and [4].
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed) Art 35
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 184 (consd);s 336 (1)
Lee Sing Lit (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant
K Sivaratnam (S Ratnam & Associates) for the respondent.
1 The respondent was charged with an offence in November 1991. His trial upon this charge was fixed before the District Court on 28 April 1993. On that date the Prosecution was unable to proceed with the case and sought an adjournment. The reason given was that the Prosecution had confused the hearing date for this case with that of another, and by the time this had been realised it was already too late to prepare for the hearing as the necessary witnesses had not been subpoenaed. The district judge granted the respondent a discharge not amounting to an acquittal. I allowed the Prosecution's appeal against this decision, set aside the district judge's order, and ordered the charge to be reinstated, and I now give my reasons for doing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loh Siang Piow and Another v Public Prosecutor
...prosecutor informs the court that he will not further prosecute the defendant upon the charge. As I had stated in PP v Kolandavelu [1993] 3 SLR 446 , in the absence of such information, the court has no jurisdiction to exercise its powers under this section. 22.Third, when the public prosec......
-
Ranjit Kaur d/o Awthar Singh v Public Prosecutor
...that is, on 28 May 1998. As comprehensively discussed in recent cases such as Arjan Singh v PP [1993] 2 SLR 271 and PP v Kolandavelu [1993] 3 SLR 446 , applications such as these are made at the Public Prosecutor`s discretion, as conferred upon him by art 35(8) of the Constitution and s 336......
-
Loh Siang Piow and Another v Public Prosecutor
...prosecutor informs the court that he will not further prosecute the defendant upon the charge. As I had stated in PP v Kolandavelu [1993] 3 SLR 446 , in the absence of such information, the court has no jurisdiction to exercise its powers under this section. 22.Third, when the public prosec......