Salwant Singh v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date05 October 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] SGCA 46
Docket NumberCriminal Motion No 18 of 2004
Date05 October 2004
Published date11 October 2004
Year2004
Plaintiff CounselApplicant in person
Citation[2004] SGCA 46
Defendant CounselChristopher Ong Siu Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether appeal against conviction possible where accused has pleaded guilty,Application for extension of time for filing notice of appeal,Appeal,Whether proper quorum to hear application formed,Reasons for delay and merits of application,Plea of guilty,Section 244 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), s 60(1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed),Out of time,Whether question of law of public interest arising that merits consideration of Court of Appeal,Section 50 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Rules 13(1), 16 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Rules (Cap 322, R 6, 1997 Rev Ed)

5 October 2004

Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This was a motion filed by one Salwant Singh, the applicant, asking, pursuant to s 50 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”), for an extension of time to enable him to file a notice of appeal against the decision of Lai Siu Chiu J made on 28 May 2004 in Criminal Motion No 9 of 2004. The applicant was unrepresented before the judge as well as before us. We heard him on the present motion on 21 September 2004 and refused his application. We now set out our reasons.

The background

2 The applicant was a director and majority shareholder of Infoseek Communications (S) Pte Ltd (“Infoseek”). Infoseek had agreed with United Overseas Bank (“UOB”) to offer the latter’s customers international “call back” services. One mode of payment for the services was by post-payment credit card billing. This involved Infoseek keying the particulars of each transaction into an electronic draft capture terminal provided by UOB. UOB would then credit the billed amount into Infoseek’s bank account.

3 In April 1999, a glitch in Infoseek’s computerised billing system caused it to overcharge customers. Although the applicant managed to rectify the bug, he saw in it an opportunity, no doubt wrongfully, to generate excess funds for Infoseek. After correcting the glitch, he began charging UOB customers for call back services they never used.

4 The unusually high volume of business transacted by Infoseek around June 1999 aroused the suspicion of UOB. In the first week of July 1999, UOB froze $116,675.43 from Infoseek’s bank account. On 6 July 1999, the applicant left for India. About two years later, he was tracked down, arrested in India and extradited to Singapore. He was then charged for deceiving UOB Card Centre into believing that the fictitious IDD calls were made by its credit card customers, thereby dishonestly inducing UOB to credit various sums into Infoseek’s bank account. Infoseek was subsequently placed under liquidation, with the Official Receiver being appointed the liquidator.

5 Altogether, 765 charges of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) were preferred against the applicant. He pleaded guilty to five charges and consented to the remaining charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of punishment. The district judge sentenced him to 12 years’ preventive detention. Upon appeals by the applicant (against both conviction and sentence) and the Public Prosecutor (only against sentence), the Chief Justice on 14 August 2003 affirmed the conviction and enhanced the applicant’s sentence to the maximum of 20 years’ preventive detention.

6 About nine months later, on 11 May 2004, the applicant filed Criminal Motion No 9 of 2004 in the High Court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) a review of the question whether the seizure of Infoseek’s property by the Commercial Affairs Department and the transfer of the possession of it to the Official Receiver were improper and illegal;

(b) the return of all documents – in printed or electronic form – seized along with Infoseek’s property; and

(c) the recovery of the documents suppressed by the Prosecution on the occasion of his trial.

7 At the hearing of the motion on 28 May 2004, the applicant told Lai J that he wanted the return of the documents and Infoseek’s property in order to appeal to the Court of Appeal to prove that he was innocent of the charges to which he had pleaded guilty. Lai J, in dismissing the motion, held that the application was misconceived as there was no further recourse available to him.

8 Being dissatisfied with Lai J’s ruling, the applicant wanted to appeal to this court. On 31 May 2004, he informed the prison authorities of his intention. On 8 June 2004, the applicant submitted to the prison authorities documents for the filing of another criminal motion. However, the Head of the Prisons Registry did not think that the applicant could appeal against the decision made in Criminal Motion No 9 of 2004. The Head of the Prisons Registry affirmed in her affidavit that she believed that the applicant wished to appeal against his conviction and sentence through the procedure of a criminal motion. However, subsequently, on 22 July 2004, the Prisons Registry filed on behalf of the applicant a notice of appeal with the Registrar of the Supreme Court, together with the set of documents furnished by the applicant on 8 June 2004.

9 According to s 45(1) of the SCJA, a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal has to be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court within 14 days after the date on which the decision appealed against was given. Therefore, a valid notice of appeal against the decision of 28 May 2004 had to be filed latest by 11 June 2004.

10 On 30 July 2004, a senior assistant registrar of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that the notice of appeal was filed out of time, and that he would have to file a criminal motion to seek the leave of court to file the notice of appeal out of time. Pursuant to this intimation, the applicant filed the present criminal motion on 24 August 2004 asking for an extension of time of ten days, from the date of grant of the motion, to file a notice of appeal against Lai J’s decision of 28 May 2004.

Extension of time

11 We will first address what on the face of it was a motion, pursuant to s 50 of the SCJA, to seek an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Section 50 appears under Part V of the SCJA with the heading “Criminal Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal”. There is a dearth of authorities on the interpretation and application of s 50. This section provides that:

The Court of Appeal may, in its discretion, on the application of any person desirous of appealing who may be debarred from so doing by reason of his not having observed some formality or some requirement of this Act, permit an appeal upon such terms and with such directions as it may consider desirable in order that substantial justice may be done in the matter, and may, for that purpose, extend any period of time prescribed by section 45 [which deals with notices of appeal] or 47 [which deals with petitions of appeal].

12 However, it is clear that s 50 is strikingly similar to s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) which provides that:

The High Court may, on the application of any person desirous of appealing who...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Lim Hong Kheng v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 June 2006
    ...assertions made in this case, the court’s role will be reduced to rubber-stamping such applications. 26 Finally in Salwant Singh v PP [2005] 1 SLR 36 (“Salwant Singh”), the Singapore Court of Appeal was presented with a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Although th......
  • Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 4 December 2009
    ...v PP (1921) 22 Cr LJ 467 (refd) Regina v Ashdown [1974] 1 WLR 270 (distd) Regina v Grantham [1969] 2 QB 574 (distd) Salwant Singh v PP [2005] 1 SLR (R) 36; [2005] 1 SLR 36 (refd) Tee Kok Boon v PP [2006] SGCA 16 (refd) Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [1988] 1 SLR (R) 455; [1......
  • Re Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 September 2019
    ...to those that he has made in the present application (see Salwant Singh (MA); Salwant Singh (Review); Salwant Singh v Public Prosecutor [2005] 1 SLR(R) 36; Salwant Singh (PTC Notes); Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 34). The applicant explained that he had not be......
  • Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 2 July 2018
    ...in 2003. Our courts dismissed all of these applications, issuing written reasons in four cases: see Salwant Singh v Public Prosecutor [2005] 1 SLR(R) 36 (“Salwant Singh (Documents)”), Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v Public Prosecutor [2005] 1 SLR(R) 632 (“Salwant Singh (PTC Notes)”), Salwant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2004, December 2004
    • 1 December 2004
    ...quorum to hear application for extension of time to appeal against decision of the High Court 11.25 The case of Salwant Singh v PP[2005] 1 SLR 36 (‘Salwant Singh’) was one of many instalments in a series of proceedings taken by the applicant following his conviction on a number of cheating ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT