Ulaganathan Thamilarasan v Public Prosecutor

JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date13 May 1996
Neutral Citation[1996] SGHC 104
Citation[1996] SGHC 104
Defendant CounselJaswant Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselSK Kumar (SK Kumar & Associates)
Date13 May 1996
Docket NumberCriminal Revision No 6 of 1996
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterFailure to record conviction,ss 180 & 396 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Whether curable,Delay in taking out proceedings,Whether correctly accepted,Revision of proceedings,s 268 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Guilty plea,Whether revision to be denied,Failure of court to ensure accused understood nature and consequences of plea

The petitioner under s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) sought criminal revision of a decision of a district judge accepting a supposed plea of guilt by the petitioner and sentencing him to nine months` imprisonment. The revision was granted, the sentence set aside and the case was remitted for a new trial before another district judge. Since the appellant was in prison all this while, and no bail was granted, it was also ordered that an early date be set for the new trial.

Brief facts

The petitioner was charged with the commission of an outrage of modesty punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
He appeared before the district judge on 29 January 1996. The petitioner was unrepresented then. The notes taken by the district judge were brief and are reproduced in full:

Prosecutor: One charge against accused. May plea be taken.

Charge read explained and understood in Tamil. Pleads guilty. Understands nature and consequences of the plea. Statement of facts read (`A`).



Accused admits to statement of facts.
Nothing known. Mitigation: Done unintentionally. Very crowded and he was pushed forward and unintentionally he touched her.

Court: Why admit to the statement of facts?

Accused: I came here to work. If I did not admit it I would not have any ways of proving I did not do it. Did not want to go through the trouble.

Prosecutor: May matter be stood down so I can explain matter to him.

Court: Stand down to 10.05am.

10.05am court resumed

Accused: Wishes to withdraw the last mitigation. Further mitigation: Remanded since 2 January 1996. Spent a lot of money in India to work here. Worked here the past three years. Family facing financial difficulties. Please impose lenient sentence and to backdate sentence.

Prosecutor: No submission on sentencing. Confirm remanded since 2 January 1996.

Court: Nine months` imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. Imprisonment with effect from 2 January 1996.



The petition

In his petition for revision, the petitioner disclosed that no appeal was filed as he was ignorant of the procedures.
That being so, he sought to challenge the decision of the trial court as being flawed. The flaws he identified were that he was unrepresented, that the trial court failed to examine him carefully, that the explanation of the effect of his first mitigation ought not to have been done by the prosecutor, that the petitioner was under duress to plead guilty, that the plea was thus made out of desperation, and finally that the petitioner was innocent and desired an opportunity to defend himself.

In his arguments before this court, counsel for the petitioner noted a number of points concerning the decision and judgment of the district judge.
First, it was pointed out that the district judge failed to record any conviction before sentencing, contrary to s 180(b) CPC, which is mandatory. It was also contended that the trial court failed to ensure that the petitioner understood the nature and consequence of his plea of guilt, and whether the petitioner in fact intended to admit without qualification the charge against him. That it was the prosecutor who explained the effect of his first mitigation was irregular, and this ought to have been done by the court. Indeed, the petitioner`s first mitigation could not be regarded as an unequivocal plea of guilt, which meant that a plea of not guilty ought to have been recorded. Finally, it was also said that the court failed to explain to the petitioner that he could defend himself if he wished to plead his innocence.

The respondent`s case

The respondent`s case was directed to the grounds of petition.
It was contended by the respondent that the fact that the petitioner was unrepresented did not impugn the proceedings. The court had also allowed the petitioner the opportunity to reassess his earlier plea, and neither was the petitioner denied a fair hearing. The act of the prosecuting officer in explaining the consequences of the petitioner`s mitigation was one done as part of her role as an officer of the court. No grievances were voiced by the petitioner then against the prosecuting officer. As for the petitioner`s allegation that the prosecutor had coerced the petitioner into pleading guilt, the respondent contended that this amounted to the adducing of fresh evidence, which required a motion to the court. It was finally said that the petitioner ought not be granted the revision as there had been a long delay.

Before this court, the respondent added that the failure to record a conviction was a mere irregularity which could be cured under s 396, CPC.


The issues

The crucial points which arose for determination were:

(1) Whether the failure to record the conviction was fatal.

(2) The effect of the initial mitigation.



1 Failure to record the conviction

The primary issue in this revision was whether the failure to record a conviction as required by s 180(n)(ii), CPC - and not s 180(b) - was a fatal irregularity which could not be cured by s 396 CPC.


Section 180 reads, in its relevant portions:

The following procedure shall be observed by Magistrate`s Courts and District Courts in summary trials:

...

(b) if the accused pleads guilty to a charge whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted on it:

Provided that before a plea of guilty is recorded the court shall ascertain that the accused understands the nature and consequences of his plea and intends to admit without qualification the offence alleged against him;

...

(n) (ii) if the court finds the accused guilty or a plea of guilty is recorded against him, it shall record a conviction and pass sentence according to law either forthwith or on such day as the court may appoint;



While s 396 reads:

Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed or made by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on account of -

(a) any error omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceeding under this Code;

(b) the want of any sanction required by section 129; or

(c) the improper admission or rejection of any evidence,

unless the error, omission, improper admission or rejection of evidence, irregularity or want has occasioned a failure of justice.



The petitioner argued that s 396 had no application in this case for it had to be read subject to the mandatory nature of s 180.
The prosecution on the other hand contended that s 396 was only to be read subject to the provision preceding it in its chapter of the CPC, namely, s 395, which reads:

(1) No finding or sentence pronounced or passed shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed unless in the opinion of the appellate court a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 January 2002
    ...deemed to have admitted to the offence without qualification and the plea would be rejected by the court: Ulaganathan Thamilarasan v PP [1996] 2 SLR 534. In the present case, what the petitioner said in his mitigation plea was not sufficient to constitute a qualification or modification of ......
  • Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 March 2009
    ...consequence of his plea and intends to admit without qualification to the offence alleged against him (see Ulaganathan Thamilarasan v PP [1996] 2 SLR 534 at 541). There would be a serious injustice warranting criminal revision if the accused did not genuinely have the freedom to choose betw......
  • Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 March 2009
    ...consequence of his plea and intends to admit without qualification to the offence alleged against him (see Ulaganathan Thamilarasan v PP [1996] 2 SLR 534 at 541). There would be a serious injustice warranting criminal revision if the accused did not genuinely have the freedom to choose betw......
  • Md Rafiqul Islam Abdul Aziz v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 December 2016
    ...to have admitted to the offence without qualification and the plea would be rejected by the court: Ulaganathan Thamilarasan v PP [1996] 2 SLR(R) 112. However, it was also held by Yong CJ in Toh Lam Seng v Public Prosecutor [2003] 2 SLR(R) 346 (“Toh Lam Seng”) that “a statement which disclos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Case Note - THE LAW ON THE RETRACTION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLEAS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2020, December 2020
    • 1 December 2020
    ...to why there are few reported judgments where an accused person puts forth assertions in mitigation that qualify his guilty plea. 44 [1996] 2 SLR(R) 112. 45 Ulaganathan Thamilarasan v Public Prosecutor [1996] 2 SLR(R) 112 at [27]. 46 Notably, in Ganesun s/o Kannan v Public Prosecutor [1996]......

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