Sofjan and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 October 1970
• Date: 10 October 1970
• Docket Number: Case Stated No 1 of 1970
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Sofjan and another

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1970] SGCA 7

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Tah Ah Tah J

and

A V Winslow J

Case Stated No 1 of 1970

Court of Appeal

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Appeals–Forfeiture of goods under Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap 214, 1955 Rev Ed)–Whether order of forfeiture appealable–Sections 284, 290 (1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 132, 1955 Rev Ed)–Section 11 (2) Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap 214, 1955 Rev Ed)

The appellants appeared before the Criminal District Court claiming to be owners or persons having an interest in certain gold bars which had been seized and whose seizure had been reported to the District Court under s 11 (2) of the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap 214, 1955 Rev Ed) (“the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance”). The District Court ordered the bars to be forfeited.

The appellants appealed to the High Court. The public prosecutor objected to the appeal on the ground that this was not a criminal case or matter in respect of which an appeal lay from the decision of the District Court or the High Court. The High Court judge agreed, and dismissed the appeals. The High Court judge nevertheless agreed to state a case under s 60 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (Act 24 of 1969) to the Court of Appeal. The question before the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court judge's determination was correct in point of law.

The appellants contended that had a prosecution been instituted against someone in respect of those gold bars, then the person tried would have had a right of appeal against an order of forfeiture made. Accordingly, it was anomalous that, merely because no one was prosecuted, claimants such as the present appellants should not have a right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 132, 1955 Rev Ed) (“the Criminal Procedure Code”).

Held, answering the question in the affirmative:

(1) If it had been intended that an order of forfeiture should be appealable then the Legislature would have made special provision for a right of appeal in such cases, but the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance was silent on this point. It was accordingly incumbent on the appellants to establish that a right of appeal was conferred by ss 284 and 290 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code: at [12]and [15].

(2) The proceedings before the District Court in this case were not criminal in their nature and in their form. Although the court concerned was a court exercising criminal jurisdiction and although the court had to be satisfied that an offence under the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance had been committed before making an order for forfeiture, a most vital element was lacking. Namely, no one was ever liable to be convicted or sentenced to punishment such as imprisonment or fine. Accordingly, the proceedings were not criminal, and the inquiry before the District Court was not a criminal case or matter giving rise to a right of appeal under s 290 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code: at [14].

(3) The High Court judge's determination was correct in point of law, and the appeals were correctly dismissed: at [18].

Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government [1943] AC 147 (refd)

R v Justices of Central Criminal Court (1887) 18 QBD 314 (distd)

R v West Kent Quarter Sessions Appeal Committee [1951] 2 All ER 728; [1951] 2 TLR 470; [1951] WN 440 (refd)

Seaman v Burley [1896] 2 QB 344 (refd)

Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap 214, 1955Rev Ed)s 11 (2) (consd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 132,1955Rev Ed)ss 284, 290 (1) (consd);s 430

Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap 137, 1955Rev Ed)s 30

Supreme Court of Judicature Act1969 (Act 24 of 1969)s 60 (1)

Larceny Act 1861 (c 96) (UK)s 100

K C Chan for the first appellant

Ng Kian Fong (Ng Kian Fong) for the second appellant

S Rajendran (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

A V...