The Law Society of Singapore v Kalpanath Singh S/O Ramraj Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 26 June 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 129
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 24 January 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Syed Hassan Almenoar
• Defendant Counsel: Yusuf Jumabhoy
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 129

Judgment:

< Delivered by L P Thean JA >

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

In these proceedings before us the abovenamed, Kalpanath Singh s/o Ramraj Singh ( the respondent'), an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, was ordered to show cause why he should not be dealt with under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 ed). At the conclusion of the hearing, we ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. We now give our reasons.

Brief Facts The respondent was tried before the District Court on the following charges:

Charge in DAC 769/90 You, Kalpanath Singh s/o Ramraj Singh, male 47 years old, NRIC No 1116101D, are charged that you, on or about the 18th day of September 1987, at No 101A, Upper Cross Street, #12-17, People's Park Centre, Singapore, did cheat one Madam Lee Sim Yow by deceiving her into believing that a sum of $5,000 was required to be paid into court as a deposit in Suit No 2425 of 1987 and thereby dishonestly induced the said Lee Sim Yow to deliver a sum of $5,000 to you and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

Charge in DAC 770/90 You, Kalpanath Singh s/o Ramraj Singh, male 47 years old, NRIC No 1116101D, are charged that you, on or about the 21st day of January 1988, at No 101A, Upper Cross Street, #12-17, People's Park Centre, Singapore, did attempt to cheat one Madam Lee Sim Yow by deceiving her into believing that a sum of $5,000 was required to be paid into court as a deposit in Suit No 2425 of 1987 and thereby dishonestly induced the said Lee Sim Yow to deliver a sum of $5,000 to you and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224).

The court found that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the respondent. The prosecution appealed, and the appeal was heard before Yong Pung How CJ. The learned Chief Justice reversed the District Court's decision and convicted the respondent on both the charges. The respondent was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each of the charges with the sentences to run consecutively.

The learned Chief Justice found that there was sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution's case, the relevant facts of which were these. In 1987, one Lee Sim Yow, ( Lee'), a director of a video rental company known as Gillman Video &...