Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 154
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 154
• Defendant Counsel: Jasbendar Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Francis Xavier (Allen & Gledhill)
• Date: 06 June 1997
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 225 of 1996
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether appellant guilty of obtaining gratification,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether witness reliable,Prevention of Corruption Act,Whether court entitled to accept one part of testimony and reject other part,Whether evidence in respect of key issues undermined,Appeal,Due regard to be paid to judge's findings and reasons,s 6(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Corroboration,Inconsistencies minor in nature or related to minor issues,Appellant HDB officer obtaining money from director of construction company undertaking work inspected by appellant,Power of appellate court to reverse finding of fact,Witnesses,Statutory offences,Corruptly receiving gratification,Evidence,Inconsistencies in testimony,Appellate court did not have benefit of seeing or hearing witnesses,Findings of fact by court below not to be disturbed by appellate court unless clearly reached against weight of evidence,Criminal Law

The charge

The appellant, a higher technician employed by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), was charged under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (the Act), for having corruptly obtained, as an agent, a gratification in the form of a loan of $4,000 from one Tan Ah Lay, the managing director of Hock Chew Building Construction Pte Ltd (Hock Chew). The gratification was given to the appellant on 13 October 1993, allegedly as an inducement for forbearing to show disfavour to Hock Chew in relation to the appellant`s supervision of the safety aspects of the construction works carried out by Hock Chew at their HDB building project in Woodlands.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to three months` imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay a penalty of $4,000, in default one month`s imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. After hearing submissions from counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, I dismissed the appeal and now give my reasons.

The prosecution`s case

The evidence adduced by the prosecution was mainly as follows. The appellant was employed by HDB, and was the safety unit officer attached to the safety unit of the Structural Engineering Department. His duties included that of carrying out site inspections to ensure that contractors comply with safety measures, to check the submissions of safety programmes or proposals by contractors, to investigate accidents that occur on site and to recommend actions to prevent such recurrence.

At the material time, the appellant was in charge of the worksite in Woodlands, in respect of a building contract by Hock Chew (the worksite). In the course of inspection, the appellant would indicate in a checklist which he used for the inspection, whether there had been any compliance or non-compliance with safety requirements. Should there be a non-compliance of a non-serious nature, the contractor would be required to take remedial measures by a certain date, failing which HDB would award demerit points to the contractor and levy an administrative charge. If the contractor accumulated 100 demerit points within six months, he would be barred from tendering for HDB projects for three months. Where the non-compliance was of a critical nature, a stop work order would be issued.

The prosecution`s principal witness was one Tan Ah Lay (Tan) who was the managing director of Hock Chew. According to Tan, he saw the appellant about once a week when the latter went to inspect the worksite. However, they were not friends and Tan did not meet with the appellant on a social basis. One week before the alleged incident, the appellant approached Tan at the worksite office and asked for a loan of $4,000. Tan did not accede to the request. Subsequently, on 12 October 1993, the appellant paged for Tan and again asked him for the loan. This time, Tan agreed. The appellant informed Tan that he would go to the worksite the next day and asked Tan to meet him there. Tan explained that he had felt compelled to accede to the appellant`s request for the loan as he was afraid that his project might otherwise be affected.

The next day, the appellant came to the worksite in the morning and met Tan at his office. Tan took out a blank cheque and wrote the figures `$4,000`. He told the appellant to wait for a moment whilst he walked out of the office and into another room to ask his foreman Lau Ley Heng (Lau) to fill up the rest of the cheque, as Tan was illiterate in English. Tan did not explain to Lau why he had issued the cheque. Lau wrote the date `13 October 1993`, the words `Cash` and the amount `Four thousand only`. Tan signed the cheque, went back to his office and handed the cheque to the appellant, who promised to repay the loan when he had the money.

The cheque was cleared on 14 October 1993, but the appellant never repaid the loan. Moreover Tan explained that he did not ask the appellant about the repayment of the loan as he was busy with his work and had forgotten about it.

The prosecution also called one Suzana Chee Beng Yen (Suzana) as their witness. Suzana was a sales agent for Canon Marketing Pte Ltd and had been introduced to the appellant when she visited the premises of the HDB Staff Union (the Union) at Waterloo Street to sell the Union a photocopier. At that time, the appellant was the general secretary of the Union. They subsequently became intimate and met frequently between 1992 until 1994 when their relationship came to an end.

On 13 October 1993, the appellant handed a cheque to Suzana for her to cash. The appellant explained that the cheque had been given by the boss of Hock Chew, and it was for the repayment of a loan which he had made to Tan. The appellant asked her to cash the cheque on his behalf as he could not be seen to have lent money to Tan or to have any dealings of this nature with him.

The following day, Suzana cashed the cheque. She then met the appellant for lunch and handed the cash to him. A few days later, the appellant handed $2,000, together with his bank account book, to Suzana and asked her to deposit the cash into his POSB account. He told her that the money was part of the $4,000 which had been returned by Tan. The next day, Suzana banked the money into the appellant`s account, as reflected in the appellant`s passbook.

The defence case

The appellant`s defence was essentially that he had never asked Tan for a loan and suggested that Tan must have lent the money to Suzana. He testified as follows. The appellant had been employed by HDB from 1982 and had been involved in the HDB Staff Union since 1984. In 1991, he became the general secretary of the Union and was involved in running the day-to-day affairs of the Union.

Sometime in mid-1992, he asked one Richard Tan Peck Hoon (Richard), then vice-president of the Union, to look into the purchase of a photocopier. That was how he came to know Suzana, who was the sales representative for Canon Marketing. In August 1992, the Union purchased a photocopier from Canon. The appellant and Suzana subsequently developed an intimate relationship. He lavished her with gifts and they went on holidays together. However, the good times did not last and their relationship ended in 1994.

The appellant claimed that sometime in September 1993, Suzana asked him to introduce her to Tan. One day, on the appellant`s normal inspection round at Tan`s worksite, the appellant brought Suzana along and duly introduced her to Tan. The appellant told Tan that Suzana wanted to discuss with Tan about the purchase of a photocopier. Although Suzana claimed to have met Tan on that one occasion only, the appellant said that he saw her with Tan again sometime in October 1993. On that occasion, the appellant asked her what she was doing at Hock Chew`s worksite and she replied that she was soliciting for business.

The appellant also denied that he had asked for a loan from Tan one week before 13 October 1993. It was not disputed that he had gone to the worksite for an inspection on 13 October 1993 between 8.30am and 10.30am, as this was reflected in HDB`s records. However, the appellant denied that he had asked Tan for a loan or that he had received a cheque from him that day.

The appellant further gave an account of his activities that day. After visiting Hock Chew`s worksite, he went to the worksite of Pillar Construction, and remained there from 11.15am to 11.30am. He then went to Toa Payoh where he picked up Richard. Together, they left for the appellant`s brother`s house which apparently had been burgled. At about 1.40pm, the appellant and Richard left for a meeting at the Union house. The meeting started at 2pm and ended at 7pm.

After the meeting was over, the appellant had a discussion with Richard and one Tan Chuan Juan (Chuan Juan) who was the deputy general secretary of the Union, regarding a disciplinary inquiry which was to take place the next day at Bishan. When the discussion ended, it was around 9pm. The appellant and Richard went for a drink at Europa Ridley and then proceeded to have dinner at around 10pm. The appellant denied meeting Suzana that day, and his alibi was corroborated by Richard`s and Chuan Juan`s testimonies.

The next day, the appellant, Richard and Chuan Juan met for breakfast at 8.30am and then proceeded to Bishan to conduct the disciplinary inquiry. The inquiry ended at 2pm. After the inquiry, the three of them went for lunch. At 3pm, Chuan Juan left the company of the appellant and Richard, who proceeded to the Union house. The appellant left the Union house at around 6pm. Again, the appellant stated that it was impossible for him to have met Suzana during lunch that day, as he was still at the disciplinary inquiry until 2pm. Richard and Chuan Juan`s testimonies essentially corroborated the appellant`s as to their whereabouts on that day.

In respect of the $2,000 which was banked into his POSB account on 19 October 1993, the appellant denied that Suzana had done it for him. According to the appellant, Suzana paged for him on 19 October and insisted on seeing him that day. The appellant told her to meet him at the POSB Bank at the Westin Stamford hotel at 12noon. They then went for lunch. During lunch, the appellant told her that he had gone to the POSB to bank in $2,000, which was his wife`s money. That was how Suzana had come to know of the $2,000.

The appellant claimed that Suzana was a spendthrift and that she had borrowed money from him on various occasions. For instance, in May 1993, she borrowed $8,000 to buy a car; in September 1993, she borrowed a sum of $5,000; in January 1994, she again borrowed $7,000 from the appellant; and sometime later, the appellant lent her another $7,000. To date, Suzana had only returned to him $3,500.

The appellant also produced an IOU note prepared on 27 March 1995, in which was stated that Suzana owed him $20,000. The appellant explained that Suzana had asked for a further loan in 1995 and had agreed to sign...