Public Prosecutor v Muthusamy S/O A V M Kandasamy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGDC 415
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGDC 415
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor, Darren Tan
• Defendant Counsel: Accused-in-person
• Published date: 01 December 2009

10 November 2009

District Judge Soh Tze Bian:

The Charges and Sentence

1 This is an appeal against sentence filed by the accused on 9 November 2009. The accused, male aged 62, pleaded guilty before me on 12 October 2009 to 2 shoplifting charges, each of which was offence punishable under section 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and he shall also be liable to fine. These charges are as follows:

(i) In DAC 39177/2009, the accused had, on 16th day of July 2009 at or about 2:32 pm, at 29B Chai Chee Avenue, NTUC Fairpice, Singapore, a building used for the custody of property, committed theft of the following items:

a) One Guinness Foreign Extra- 500ml beer valued at $5.20/-

b) One 'Hosen' Longan — 565g can valued at $2/-

c) One Pasar Pork spare ribs valued at $4.35/-

d) One 'Xinghua Chiew' - 125ml Chinese wine valued at $8.36/-

e) One 'Weiyuanyao jin' - 155ml Chinese wine valued at $7.34/-

with a total value of $27.25/-, in the possession of one Chua Lay Hwa.

(ii) In DAC41396/2009, the accused had, on 13th day of July 2009 at about 1:08 am, at No. 145 Syed Alwi Road, Mustafa Centre, Singapore, a building used for the custody of property, committed theft of the following items:

a) One NIKE Cap valued at S$ 19.50/-

b) One CRISS CROSS Ladies Top valued at SS5.00/-

c) One CRISS CROSS Ladies Botom valued at S$ 10.00/-

d) One VERINDINE Gents Shoe valued at S$ 19.90/-

e) One AMELLNK Cordless phone valued at SS68.00/-

with a total value of $122.40/-, in the possession of one Mdm Syed Sultan Beevi.

2 For the purpose of taking into consideration for sentencing by this Court, the accused also admitted to a charge in DAC 47867/2009 that he, on the 3rd day of July 2009 at about 3:10 pm, at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, had voluntarily caused hurt to one Maula Romer Philip Imperial, to wit, by slapping the said Maula Romer Impeial on the face with his hand which is an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.

3 For DAC 39177/2009 & DAC 41396/2009, I sentenced the accused to preventive detention for a period of 8 years with effect from 2 November 2009. The accused would be released from imprisonment tentatively on 1 November 2017.

Statement of Facts

4 The statement of facts, admitted by the accused without qualification, read as follows:

“FACTS PERTAINING TO 1st CHARGE

1 The complainant is Chua Lay Hwa, female/50 yrs old, SXXXXXXXI. She is working as a retail assistant for NTUC Fairprice located at Blk 29B Chai Chee Ave #01-62.

2 The defendant is Muthusamy s/o A V M Kandasamy, male/62 years, SXXXXXXXD, residing at Blk 24 Chai Chee Road #10-602.

3 On 16th of July 2009 at around 2:32pm, the complainant called for police and informed that there is a case of shoplifting which involved a male Indian. The location was given as Blk 29B Chai Chee Ave, NTUC Fairprice, Singapore, a building used for the custody of property.

4 Investigations revealed that on 16th of July 2009 at around 2:30pm, the complainant spotted the defendant taking a can of 'Guinness Foreign Extra 500ml' from the shelves. The defendant was spotted putting the said can of beer into his blue haversack.

5 After which, the defendant approached the complainant and enquired where the Chinese wines were located. The defendant then took two bottles of Chinese wine before he walked towards the frozen food section.

6 Sensing that something is amiss, the complainant alerted her group leader. Two NTUC staff members then positioned themselves at the 2 exit points of the supermarket. A while later, the defendant walked out from the supermarket without paying and he was detained outside the supermarket.

7 A check was made on the defendant's haversack and the following unpaid items were discovered:

a) One Guinness Foreign Extra - 500ml beer valued at $5.20/-

b) One 'Hosen’ Longan - 565g can valued at $2/-

c) One Pasar Pork spare ribs valued at $4.35/-

d) One 'Xinghua Chiew' - 125ml Chinese wine valued at $8.36/-

e) One Weiyuan yao jin' - 155ml Chinese wine valued at $7.34/-

with a total value of $27.25/-.

8 The defendant had admitted to the offence and his blue haversack has been seized as case exhibits.

9 By intentionally removing the said items from the said premises, from the possession of one Chua Lay Hwa and without her consent, the accused had thereby committed an offence of shop theft under Section 380 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

FACTS PERTAINING TO 2nd CHARGE

10 The complainant is Ganesh A/L Ooi Ah San, Male/22 years old. He is a security officer with Mustafa Shopping Centre located at No. 145 Syed Alwi Road, Singapore.

11 The accused is Muthusamy S/O A V M Kandasamy, Male/62 years old with NRIC No: SXXXXXXXD.

12 On 13 July 2009 at about 1:38 am at Mustafa Shopping Centre, located at no. 145 Syed Alwi Rd, Singapore, the police responded to a message of 'Local Male Indian detained for shop theft'. Hence, the accused was placed under arrest.

13 Investigations revealed that the accused had gone to Mustafa Shopping Centre located at no. 145 Syed Alwi Road, a building used for custody of property on 13 July 2009. On the same day and place at about 1:08 am, the accused took the following items:

a) One NIKE Cap valued at S$19.50/-

b) One CRISS CROSS Ladies Top valued at S$5.00/-

c) One CRISS CROSS Ladies Bottom valued at S$10.00/-

d) One VERINDINE Gents Shoe valued at S$19.90/-

e) One AMELINK Cordless phone valued at S$68.00/-,

with a total value of S$122.40/- and placed item (a) to (e) inside a Mustafa Centre plastic bag. The accused then walked out of the said premises without paying for the said items. The anti-theft alarm sounded and the accused was then detained outside the said shopping centre.

14 A check was conducted and it was confirmed by the Department Sales Assistant Mdm Syed Sultan Beevi that items (a) to (e) were the property of Mustafa Shopping Centre and were unpaid for.

15 By intentionally removing the items from the said premises, from the possession of the Department Sales Assistant, Mdm Syed Sultan Beevi and without her consent, the accused had thereby committed an offence of shop theft under Section 380 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. ”

Antecedents

5 The accused who had a number of drug-related antecedents and also antecedents of affray, disorderly behaviour and outraging modesty admitted to the following theft and property-related antecedents as well as those relating to causing hurt :

Date of sentence	Offence	Punishment
19/11/1968	Housebreaking & theft by day (s454); theft of bicycle	12 months ‘probation
30/03/1972	3 counts of Voluntarily causing hurt with; dangerous weapon or means (s324)	4 months’ impt
20/04/1976	14 counts of Housebreaking & theft by; day (s454): 4 proceeded charges and; 10 charges taken into consideration	48 months’ impt; (DAC993/1976-18 months; DAC 992/1976- 12 months; DAC 906/1976-6 months &; DAC907/1976-12 months)
05/09/1983	2 counts of Housebreaking & theft; by day (s457)	30 months’ impt followed by CT PS
16/04/1988	Theft in dwelling (s.380)	2 years’ impt followed by CT PS; of 24 months
17/06/1991	Using criminal force; (s352) & voluntarily causing hurt (s323)	1 week’s impt & fine $1000 i/d; 5 weeks impt (fine not paid)
18/03/1991	Voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous; weapon or means (s324)	6 months’ impt and 3 strokes
17/01/2000	Theft in Dwelling (s380)	3 years’impt
06/06/2002	Theft in Dwelling (s380)	7 years’ preventive detention

Mitigation

6 The accused who was unrepresented urged the Court to give him one last chance and promised to turn over a new leaf and not to re-offend. In his written mitigation, he remorsefully asked for forgiveness for his offences and gave his sincere apologies to the Court. He said he is a heart patient at the age of 62 years. Upon his release from prison recently, he went to look for his daughter and son. His daughter who is married now is no more staying at the address she told him. His search for her went in vain. As for his son, he had changed his place of stay and phone number. Ever since then he is all alone without anyone to call as his family. He also has high blood pressure, diabetes, hypertension and in November 2007, he had gone for a mild stroke operation at Tan Tock Seng Hospital’s NNI department. He hoped the Court would not pass a deterrent sentence on him and would show him mercy and pass a lenient sentence. He was very sorry and very remorseful for his ignorant deeds. He hoped to walk out of the prison when he is released but not pushed out. He asked the Court for mercy and to give him one chance and pass on him a light sentence.

Prosecution’s Submission on Sentence

7 The prosecution which did not submit on sentence and left sentencing to the Court’s discretion had nevertheless, at the request of the Court, furnished details of the accused’s most recent theft antecedents in 2000 and 2002. The accused had committed shop-theft of two cans of draught Guinness and one bar of chocolate with a total value of $12.40 and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on 17 January 2000. He had committed shop-theft of one ‘Banroy’ Polo T-shirt and one bottle of “Verdange’ wine with a total value of $32.15 and was sentenced to 7 years’ preventive detention on 6 June 2002.

Preventive detention report

8 Having considered the facts and circumstances of the accused’s current offences and his antecedents, and in order to consider the physical and mental condition of the accused and his suitabilityto undergo a sentence of preventive detention, I remanded the accused for three weeks so that the prison authorities can prepare and submit for my consideration a preventive detention report pursuant to section 12(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) which provides as follows:

“12(3) Before sentencing any...