Thai Chong Pawnshop Pte Ltd and Others v Vankrisappan and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 23 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 111
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 5 of 1994
• Date: 23 April 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: G Raman (G Raman & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 111
• Defendant Counsel: Ismail Hamid (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 386(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Pledge of stolen items,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Court's discretion in awarding payment to pawnbroker for items returned to owner,Credit and Security,Disposal inquiry,Disposal of property,s 31 Pawnbrokers Act (Cap 222),Pledges and pawns

This was a petition for the revision of orders made by the district judge during a disposal inquiry. The inquiry, held on 16 November 1993, was consequent upon the conviction of one Purana Chandran s/o Subramaniam on 24 November 1992 for several burglaries. Purana Chandran had obtained certain items of jewellery during the course of these burglaries and had, thereafter, pledged them with the petitioners and five other shops. The items were recovered upon Purana Chandran`s arrest and formed the subject matter of the disposal inquiry.

At the disposal inquiry, there was little dispute on ownership. With the exception of the fifth petitioner, whose representative claimed ignorance about the identity of the owner, the representatives of the petitioners and the other five pawnshops did not dispute ownership. The petitioners did, however, request a payment of 50% of the pawned value of the jewellery. The district judge ordered that the jewellery be given back to the respective respondents as the owners upon the condition that a certain percentage of the pawned value be paid to each of the pawnshops involved. The petitioners obtained 10% of the pawned value on each of the items pledged by Purana Chandran at their shops. Being dissatisfied with this, the petitioners sought criminal revision of the judge`s decision. I dismissed the petition and now give my reasons.

The matter of disposal of items unlawfully pledged at pawnshops is governed by both the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and the Pawnbrokers Act (Cap 222) (`the Act`). It is convenient at this juncture to set out the sections relevant for our purposes. Section 386(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:

During or at the conclusion of any inquiry or trial in any criminal court the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of any document, livestock or other property produced before it.

Where the item has been pawned with a pawnbroker, the situation is modified by s 31 of the Act, which provides:

(1) ...

(c) If in any proceedings before a Magistrate`s Court or other court it appears to the court that any goods and chattels brought before the court have been unlawfully pawned with a pawnbroker,

the court, on proof of the ownership of the goods and chattels, may, if it thinks fit, order the delivery thereof to the owner, either on payment to the pawnbroker of the amount of the loan or any part thereof, or without payment thereof or of any part thereof, as to the court, according to the conduct of the owner and the other circumstances of the case, seems just and fitting.

(2) The court may also adjourn the proceedings for the attendance of the pawnbroker, and may summon the pawnbroker to attend at the adjourned hearing, and if, after hearing the pawnbroker, the court is of opinion that the pawnbroker has not exercised due care in taking in pawn any stolen property, the court may order the pawnbroker to pay a fine not exceeding $2,000.

Before turning to the queries raised by counsel for the petitioner, I think it appropriate to outline the court`s view on these sections. In my view, the Criminal Procedure Code envisages the disposal inquiry as a fairly informal hearing, where the presiding judicial officer is given a fair measure of discretion to `make such order as it (the court) thinks fit`. Where the items in question are articles falling within the categories defined by s 31(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Act, the procedure is modified by s 31(1) of the Act, which highlights two issues: ownership of the pawned item, and payment to the pawnbroker. The Act, however, still entrusts a wide measure of discretion to the judicial officer. If ownership is proved, the court possesses the discretion to award the item to its owner if it thinks fit. At the same time, the statute gives the court absolute discretion to decide whether to order payment at all to the pawnbroker, and, if any is ordered, the amount of that payment. As was said by Murray-Aynsley CJ in Ho York Quin v R :1

All that need be said is that the court has the fullest discretion as to whether to make an order or not and in the order it makes, if it should decide to make one.

In my view, the disposal inquiry is intended to be an inexpensive and expeditious manner of distributing items produced at trial or found in the course of investigations, and the width of the judicial officer`s discretion underlines this intention. The disposal inquiry is not conclusive as to title, and, indeed, the rightful legal owner can and should assert his rights in a separate civil suit: Hoh...