Ramachandran v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 21 September 1972
• Date: 21 September 1972
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 74 of 1971
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ramachandran

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1972] SGHC 15

F A Chua J

Magistrate's Appeal No 74 of 1971

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Charge–Separate charge for distinct offences–Whether two distinct offences rolled up in one charge–Whether charge bad for duplicity–Whether irregularity curable or whether irregularity resulting in conviction being quashed–Evidence–Witnesses–Corroboration–Witness offering various sums of money to accused before turning “agent provocateur”–Whether “agent provocateur” regarded as accomplice–Whether evidence of “agent provocateur” capable of corroborating evidence given by another accomplice

This appeal was against the appellant's conviction on a charge that he, being an agent, to wit, a Detective Police Constable employed by the Police Republic Singapore, corruptly obtained from one Sathan a gratification of a sum of $100 as a reward for forbearing to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs, namely, to put up a detention case under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance (No 26 of 1955) against Sathan and to take action against one Palanichamy to be sent to India. The appellant was convicted of an offence under s 6 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance 1960 (No 39 of 1960; RS (A) 27 of 1966).

The two main grounds of appeal were that:

1. (a) the charge was bad for duplicity as two distinct offences were rolled up into one charge. Two points arose for the court's consideration under this ground of appeal. First, whether the charge was bad for duplicity. Second, if there was duplicity, whether that was an irregularity which could be cured under s 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113, 1970 Rev Ed) or whether it was an irregularity which could only result in the conviction being quashed; and

2. (b) the district judge erred in law in holding that Sathan was not an accomplice and in holding that evidence of Palanichamy, an accomplice, was substantially corroborated by Sathan when Sathan was himself an accomplice and was thus incapable of corroborating the evidence of another accomplice.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) There were two distinct offences, namely: (a) that the appellant corruptly obtained from Sathan a gratification of $50 as a reward for forbearing to put up a detention case under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1955 (No 26 of 1955) against Sathan; and (b) that the appellant corruptly obtained from Palanichamy a gratification of $50 as a reward for forbearing to take action against Palanichamy to be sent to India: at [24].

(2) This was a case of two distinct offences combined in a single charge. However, they were similar offences and each offence could have been the subject of a separate charge and tried together. In those circumstances, the charge was an irregularity which was curable unless it could be shown that there had been a failure of justice. The court was satisfied that in the present case the irregularity had occasioned no failure of justice: at [26].

(3) Right from the beginning, Sathan offered various sums of money to the appellant at various intervals before subsequently turning “agent provocateur”. Sathan was a party from the beginning to the alleged criminal transaction. In view of those facts, Sathan was an accomplice and his evidence needed corroboration in material particulars. As one accomplice cannot corroborate another, the district judge had accepted evidence as corroborative which was not in law corroborative evidence, and therefore the conviction had to be quashed: at [29] to [32].

Banwarilal v Union of IndiaAIR 1963 SC 1620 (refd)

Chunnoo v StateAIR 1954 All 795 (refd)

Davis v DPP [1954] AC 378 (refd)

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1955 (No 26 of 1955)s 55

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113, 1970 Rev Ed)ss 161, 382

Prevention of Corruption Ordinance1960 (No 39 of1960; RS (A) 27 of1966)s 6 (a)

Dato' David Marshall (David Marshall) for the appellant

Glenn Knight (Deputy Public Prosecutor)) for the respondent.

F A Chua J

1 This appeal is against the appellant's conviction in the District Court on the following charge:

That he, on or about 8 January 1971 at about 8.45pm, outside the Beach Road Police Station, Beach Road, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Detective Police Constable bearing number 2783 employed by the Police Republic Singapore, corruptly obtained from one Sathan Periak Aruppan for himself a gratification of a sum of one hundred dollars ($100), as a reward for forbearing to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs to wit, to put up a detention case under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance against the said Sathan Periak Aruppan and to take action against one Palanichamy Sooruli to be sent to India, and he had thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960 (No 39 of 1960; Reprint No RS (A) 27 of 1966).

2 The prosecution evidence is shortly this. Sathan Periak Aruppan (hereinafter referred to as “Sathan”) is a grass cutter employed in the anti-malarial unit of the Public Health Department. He earned extra money by washing motor cars at 24 Tomlinson Road, a block of flats. S Nadeson, a mandore working also in the anti-malarial unit of the Public Health Department, was given a contract to clean the flats at 24 Tomlinson Road. A dispute arose between Sathan and Nadeson over the washing of the motor cars at 24 Tomlinson Road. On 13 July 1970, Sathan wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police...