Ramanathan Yogendran v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 June 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 141
• Date: 01 June 1995
• Subject Matter: Offences,ss 7, 9 & col 8 Sch A Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance,Criminal Law,High court,Jurisdiction,Effect of 1986 amendments to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Mandatory caning,Whether descriptive of offence carrying mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment,Whether effect of threat relevant,Threat to kill victim,ss 503 & 506 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether court had discretion to dispense with punishment on medical grounds,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Forms of punishment,Sentencing,Courts and Jurisdiction,Definition of 'offence',ss 232 & 233 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),s 195 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether district court had general jurisdiction to try offences punishable with up to ten years' imprisonment,'Punishable with ... imprisonment for a term of ... or upwards',Words and Phrases,Offence 'punishable with _ imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards'
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 236 of 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Christine Lee and Ong Hian Sun (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Chee Meng and Lim Chin Han (Harry Elias & Pnrs)

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): The appellant was convicted in a district court on 3 November 1994 on five charges which were as follows:

(1) DAC 11132/93

You, Ramanathan Yogendran, male 41 years, NRIC No 1031349Z, are charged that you, on 30 March 1992 at Central Police Division Headquarters, Eu Tong Sen Street, Singapore, did fabricate false evidence by making a police report numbered A/920330/122D containing a statement, to wit:

`On 27 March 1992, my client Kunjambu Arumugam came to my office and demanded that I gave him a cheque for $38,000. When I refused, as he was not entitled to it, he used a letter opener which was on my table and pointed it at me and told me that he will stab me with it if I did not give him the cheque. I became frightened and prepared him a cheque. Whilst I was preparing the cheque, he told me to hurry up. I gave him the cheque and he went and encashed it,`

which was false, intending that the said statement might appear as evidence in a judicial proceeding and knowing it likely that you would thereby cause one Kunjambu Arumugam to be convicted of an offence under s 392 read with s 397 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not more than ten years and with caning, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 195 punishable under ss 392 and 397 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

(2) DAC 11133/93

You, Ramanathan Yogendran, male 41 years, NRIC No 1031349Z, are charged that you, on 27 March 1992 at 171 Chin Swee Road #05-06 San Centre, committed breach of trust as an agent in that you, being at that material time an advocate and solicitor and practising under your firm`s name of Yogen & Partners and in such capacity as being entrusted with dominion over property, to wit, a sum of $38,000 released by the Keppel Bank of Singapore Ltd pursuant to a housing loan granted to one Nemah bte Hamid which you held as stakeholder in your firm`s clients` account in connection with the sale and purchase of an apartment at Blk 371, Clemenceau Avenue #11-376, dishonestly misappropriated the said property and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

(3) DAC 2868/94

You, Ramanathan Yogendran, male 41 years, NRIC No 1031349Z, are charged that you, on 28 March 1992, sometime between 9am and 9.20am did commit criminal intimidation by threatening one Arumugam Kujambu with injury to his person, to wit, by threatening to kill him, intending to cause alarm to the said Arumugam Kujambu, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 506 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

(4) DAC 2869/94 (as amended at the end of the trial)

You, Ramanathan Yogendran, male 41 years, NRIC No 1031349Z, are charged that you, on 31 March 1992 at United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd, Katong Branch, Singapore, did fabricate false evidence by causing the following circumstances to exist, to wit, by banking in five Malayan Banking Bhd cheques issued by one Arumugam Kujambu as follows:

(i) Cheque No 087233 for $ 4,500

(ii) Cheque No 087237 for $ 5,730

(iii) Cheque No 087240 for $ 3,400

(iv) Cheque No 087242 for $ 500

(v) Cheque No 087243 for $14,382

which you knew would be dishonoured and which were subsequently dishonoured by the said Malayan Banking Bhd, intending that such circumstance may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 193 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

(5) DAC 4022/94

You, Ramanathan Yogendran, male 41 years, NRIC No 1031349Z, are charged that you, on 30 March 1992 at Central Police Division Headquarters, did give to a public servant, namely, one Insp Patrick Rajagopal certain information in your police statement, to wit:

`... On 27 March 1992 at about 1440 hours, the said Arumugam came to my office at Chin Swee Road without any prior appointments. I met him and he asked me whether the said cheque had come in. I told him that the cheque has already been deposited into my firm`s clients` account. On hearing this, he asked me to hand over the said cheque to him. I told him that he is not entitled to the said cheque. He became angry and demanded for the cheque. I insisted to him that he had no right over the cheque. At this juncture, he took one letter opener which was on my table and pointed the letter opener to me in a threatening manner. He told me that he will stab me with the letter opener if I refuse to hand over the cheque to him. He even told me to hurry up. I became frightened and prepared the cheque amounting to $38,000 made payable in his name and handed the cheque to him. I handed one Overseas Union Bank cheque, No 097428, to him ...`

which you knew to be false, knowing it to be likely that you would thereby cause such public servant to use his lawful powers to the injury of one Arumugam Kujambu, which charge is for an offence under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

He was sentenced on these charges as follows:

(1) DAC 11132/93 - three years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane

(2) DAC 11133/93 - three years` imprisonment

(3) DAC 2868/94 - one year`s imprisonment

(4) DAC 2869/94 - one year`s imprisonment

(5) DAC 4022/94 - six months` imprisonment

The district judge ordered the sentences of imprisonment in respect of DAC 11132/93, DAC 11133/93 and DAC 4022/94 to run concurrently but consecutively to the imprisonment terms in DAC 2868/94 and DAC 2869/94. In total, the appellant would serve five years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. This appeal was brought against his convictions and the sentences.

Evidence adduced on DAC 11132/93, DAC 11133/93 and DAC 4022/94

The appellant was an advocate and solicitor of some ten years` standing, practising as the sole proprietor of Yogen & Partners. Sometime in January 1992, one Mdm Nemah bte Hamid engaged him to represent her in her purchase of an apartment, unit #11-376 at the Skyscraper, 372 Clemenceau Avenue, at the price of $380,000. The appellant also acted for the vendors, Arumugam Kujambu (Colin) and his wife, Rita Kurup, in the same transaction. Colin and his wife jointly owned another apartment at the Skyscraper, #09-378. Sometime before November 1991, the appellant had agreed to buy #09-378 from Colin. To this end, the appellant had obtained a housing loan from Keppel Bank and an undated option form was drafted and given to him.

In respect of #11-376, Mdm Nemah obtained a housing loan of $232,000 and a bridging loan of $38,000 from Keppel Bank. The bridging loan, representing 10% of the purchase price, was to enable her to exercise the option to purchase #11-376 and was to be subsequently repaid to Keppel Bank from her CPF savings. The deadline for exercising the option to purchase was 25 March 1992. The appellant had called the solicitors for Keppel Bank, Drew & Napier, as early as 31 January 1992 to request the release of the bridging loan. In a letter dated 16 March 1992, the appellant confirmed that his firm would hold the $38,000 as stakeholder until the completion date which was to be on 20 April 1992. On 25 March 1992, Drew & Napier forwarded a cashier`s order for the sum of $38,000 made out to Yogen & Partners. This cashier`s order was deposited into Yogen & Partners` clients` account on 26 March 1992.

It transpired that #11-376 had been repossessed by the mortgagee bank, Bank of Singapore, and was scheduled to be auctioned off on 26 March 1992. The appellant attended the auction and made a bid at $390,000 but the apartment was sold to the highest bidder at $400,000.

Colin gave evidence that on 27 March 1992, the appellant telephoned him to say that he had some good news for him. The appellant told him that the 10% downpayment for #09-378 which he was buying from Colin was already in. The appellant requested to borrow this sum to settle some financial problems. He proposed that he would prepare a cheque in Colin`s name, whereupon Colin could encash it and lend the money to him. Colin was uncertain whether this was legitimate. The appellant assured him that he would be `personally responsible` for the money and nothing would go wrong. He assured Colin that he had gold credit cards and one card could be used in case he had to replace the money. Colin eventually agreed to the arrangement, assuaged by the appellant`s assurances and also on account of the appellants` previous assistance in settling some of his debts.

The appellant told Colin to go to his office at about 2.30pm that very day and to wait downstairs to collect the cheque. Colin went to the appellant`s office at San Centre, Chin Swee Road, accompanied by one Chung Voon Cheng, in Chung`s car. Colin told Chung that he was going to the appellant`s office to collect the 10% downpayment for the apartment. On arriving at San Centre, he was told to go up to the appellant`s office as the cheque was not ready yet and the appellant was engaged on the phone.

Colin met the appellant in his office. The appellant pointed at his watch to indicate that Colin was late. He asked for Colin`s identity card and wrote out a cheque in Colin`s name. Unfortunately, the appellant made a mistake. He thus tore up the first cheque and made out another cheque to `Arumugam A/L Kujambu`, which was Colin`s name as stated in his identity card. He handed the uncrossed cheque to Colin. Colin collected the cheque and walked out. All this took place between 2.30pm to 2.45pm.

Chung was waiting for Colin all this while in his car. Chung and Colin then drove to a bank at Liang Court. The journey took about five minutes. Colin encashed the cheque and went back to his office at about 3.15pm. At about 4pm, the appellant called Colin and asked him if the cheque had been encashed. Colin replied in the affirmative and told the appellant that he could go to his office anytime. Apparently, Colin did not intend to lend the...