Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ghalib s/o Sadruddin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Paul Quan
• Judgment Date: 18 October 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGDC 316
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case 57813 of 2009
• Published date: 21 February 2011
• Year: 2010
• Hearing Date: 05 May 2010,03 May 2010,30 June 2010,07 May 2010,04 May 2010,06 May 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hui Choon Kuen & Andrew Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: K Jayakumar Naidu (Jay Associates)
• Citation: [2010] SGDC 316

District Judge Paul Quan:

The Accused claimed trial to a charge under Section 28(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap 241 (“the Act”), of knowingly giving false information relating to the commission of an offence under the Act.¹ At the close of a five-day trial, parties were given time to prepare and tender written submissions. Having also had the benefit of time to consider those submissions in conjunction with reviewing the evidence that has been adduced during the trial, I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused, upon which a conviction could safely rest.

Before I pronounced a finding of guilt and convicted the Accused, I gave some brief oral reasons to assist parties in understanding how I arrived at my decision.² After noting his previous similar antecedents under Section 28 of the Act, as well as hearing Counsel’s mitigation on his behalf and the Prosecution’s submission for a deterrent sentence to be imposed on him, I sentenced the Accused to six months’ imprisonment. On the same day after judgment was delivered, the Accused lodged a notice of appeal against both conviction and sentence. The Accused is currently released on bail pending appeal. I now set out in full the reasons for my decision.

The case for the Prosecution

The case for the Prosecution is that on 1 October 2007, at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”), the Accused gave information relating to the commission of an offence under the Act, by stating to PW2 Mr Teng Khee Fatt, a CPIB special investigator, that another CPIB special investigator, PW3 Mr Mohd Osman Ahamed Meerah, had received free food from one ‘Kasim’ at the Malayan Railway Station canteen (“the canteen”) from July to September 2002, in return for advising Kasim on how to avoid detection for employing illegal immigrants.

According to the Prosecution, the information given by the Accused was false because PW3 had never given any of such advice to Kasim and did not at any time take free food from Kasim in return for giving him such advice. The Accused also knew that the information he gave was false. To this end, the Prosecution called, apart from PW2 and PW3, three other material witnesses, namely: PW4 Mr Senthivel s/o Sevugan, who was assisting Kasim at the canteen in 2002; PW5 Mr Mahmoodul Hasan s/o Hafiz Abdul Saftar who was present at the canteen in 2002; and PW6 Mr Masudul Hasan s/o Hafiz Abdul Saftar, who was PW5’s brother and was present at the canteen on various occasions in 2002. The Prosecution also called PW1 Mr Frederick Tok, a CPIB special investigator, who was the ‘caretaker’ investigating officer, but nothing turned on his evidence. He gave formal evidence on Kasim’s demise on 28 October 2005,³ as well as the period for which the Accused was incarcerated from 30 July 2002 to 24 September 2002.⁴ The Defence did not dispute such evidence. I will briefly set out the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

PW2 Mr Teng Khee Fatt

During evidence-in-chief, PW2 gave evidence that on 5 April 2007, CPIB received the complaint against PW3 by the Accused that was referred by the Honourable Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC, Prof Koo Tsai Kee (“Prof Koo”). In his letter of 26 March 2007 to Prof Koo, the Accused wrote, amongst other things, that: ⁵

Owing to brisk business, [Kasim] secretly employed two Indian Nationals and both were illegal immigrants. At the material times [sic] [PW3] who used to patronized [sic] [Kasim’s] stall was apprised of the true status of the two Indian Nationals by [Kasim] in my presence.

However, as [PW3] was beholden to [Kasim] by taking free food on a regular basis, the following advice was imparted discreetly and surreptitiously to [Kasim] by [PW3] to eschew from the law dragnet and the main tenant [PW5]. (a) maintain a low profile; (b) avoid direct communications with patrons because of language barriers as the two illegal immigrants was unable to communicate in local vernacular languages; (c) emanate fake documents to the tenant should the latter decide to verify their true identities; (d) adviced [sic] them to runaway [sic] from the scene, should the authorities concern [sic] conduct a surprise operation; (e) deny vehemently of knowing them should the dual [sic] be caught by the authority by sheer bad luck or information submitted to the authority. (f) contact him ([PW3]) promptly, should [Kasim] land in hot soup as the former being a CPIB Officer had abundance of contacts and influences in various government agencies.

…

When I queried from [PW3] why he shouldered the high risk, he lamented that being a muslim, it is his primary duty to protect a fellow muslim. He also admitted that by getting free meals, he had to help [Kasim] naturally.

When I told him that if I report this matter to the authority the consequence will be serious, he retorted that his colleagues in CPIB will quash the case but instead will charge me in court for false report lodged against [PW3], and out of fear, I did not lodge any report.

However, in early December 2002, I discreetly and verbally informed Mr Bhopinder Singh, Director of Operation of ICA to this effect.

In conclusion, after a protracted discussion with [a prominent RC member], I decided to lodge a formal complaint through my Member of Parliament, for the matter to be investigated thoroughly and let justice prevail, in the interest of justice.

PW2 was then assigned to investigate into the complaint on 27 September 2007 and recorded the statement of the Accused on 29 September 2007 (“P7”), wherein the Accused stated at [6]-[8] that: 6 On one occasion in Jan 2002, I patronized [sic] the Railway Station canteen and ordered food from Abdul Aziz, during lunch time. When I finished my food, [PW3] came to the canteen. He joined my table and set [sic] opposite me. [Kasim] came in and told us that he had prepared special Indian Beryani [sic] for me and [PW3]. Shortly, he returned to the table with two packet of Indian Beryani [sic]. I declined to accept it. [Kasim] gave the two packets of Beryani [sic] to [PW3] since I declined. At that time, [Kasim] also set [sic] down and joined us. [Kasim] told [PW3] that [PW5] and his son, [DW2], put pressure on him by demanding him to produce legal document for employing the two Indian workers. [PW3] gave advices [sic] to [Kasim] on the following points: a. The two Indian workers should maintain a low profile; b. The two Indian workers should avoid direct communications with patrons since they were unable to communicate in local vernacular languages; c. Since [PW5] was illiterate, he ([Kasim]) could show him fake documents to convince him; d. Should the authorities like police and Immigrations [sic] or MOM conduct a surprise check, the two illegal workers should run away from the scene; e. If [Kasim] was in trouble, [Kasim] could call him ([PW3]) and he ([PW3]) could contact his friends to help him up. 7 When [Kasim] left the table, I told [PW3] that the reason why I declined to accept the packet of Beryani [sic] from [Kasim] because he employed two illegal immigrants. [PW3] said that he was aware of that. He continued to say that as a Muslim, it is our divine duty to help another Muslim. [PW3] was referring to [Kasim]. I told [PW3] that he was taking a risk. [PW3] said who would report this and no body [sic] knew about it. I told him that I could report against him. He said that even if I reported against him, his colleague would squash [sic] the case against him and instead would charge me for giving false information. I took this threat seriously. At that time, I did not report to anyone because I was afraid that he might charge me for giving false information. 8 After this incident, I had seen [PW3] taking free food from [Kasim] regularly during lunch and dinner time. I used to see [PW3] patronise the [Kasim]’s stall for free food during lunch time and dinner time from Jan 2002 until 2005 when [Kasim] was asked to leave. I saw [Kasim] give free Indian Rojak, Murtabak, Thosai, and Prata to [PW3] free of charge. I am sure that [PW3] did not pay for the food. I am very sure that [Kasim] had given [PW3] free food. I know that one packet of Rajak [sic] was about $5 to $6. One packet of Murtabak was about $4. One packet of Thosai was about $3 and one Prata was about $1 each. I can say that it was very often. This is also confirmed by [Kasim] and [PW5]. I know that whenever [PW3] patronised the canteen, he took free food from [Kasim]. I know this because when I was there and I saw. I also learnt from [Kasim]. This was happened between Jan 2002 and 2005. Subsequently, PW2 recorded a further statement from the Accused on 1 October 2007 (“P8”) to obtain more details about the food items that PW3 allegedly took, wherein the Accused stated at [17] that:

In regards to the free foods [sic] taken by [PW3], I wish to say that [PW3] had often taken free foods from Kasim and every time when [PW3] visited the canteen, Kasim would serve him with a plate of food and also gave him a packet of cooked food to be taken away. But, I cannot give detailed descriptions of the types of specific foods taken by [PW3] and the price of the foods. What I can say is that he had taken at least one packet of food from Kasim every month. Now, I wish to say that [PW3] had, on the following occasions between 2002 and 2005, taken away the following free foods [sic] from Kasim at the Railway Station canteen...

Following this paragraph is a tabulation of information about the types and quantity of food, how much they cost, and when they were allegedly taken (“the table”). With reference to the period from July 2002 to September 2002, the Accused stated that PW3 had taken one packet of thosai at an estimated cost of $4 in July 2002, as well as one packet of murtabak at an estimated cost of $5 both in August 2002 and September 2002.

...