Velautham s/o Rengasamy v Public Prosecutor
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Yap Siew Yong |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] SGDC 47 |
| Published date | 19 April 2005 |
| Year | 2001 |
| Citation | [2001] SGDC 47 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Velautham s/o Rengasamy ...appellant
v
Public Prosecutor ...respondent
| Citation: | DAC No 6671-72 of 2000 |
| Jurisdiction: | Singapore |
| Date: | 2001:02:14 |
| 2000:11:14, 2000:10:12, 2000:09:01, 2000:08:28 - 2000:08:31 2000:07:24 - 2000:07:29 | |
| Court: | Subordinate Courts |
| Coram: | Yap Siew Yong, District Judge |
| Counsel: | Mr David Chew (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent |
| Mr Joe Chellam (Ng Thin Wah & Partners) for the appellant |
JUDGMENT:
Grounds of Decision
1. The accused claimed trial to both the following Charges under Section 420 of the Penal Code, Cap 224 :
DAC 6671/00 (exhibit P1)
"You, Velautham s/o Rengasamy, M/62 yrs old
NRIC No: S 0283615G
are charged that you, on a day in March 1998 in Singapore, did cheat by deceiving the Singapore Tamil Movement into believing that Silwaraju s/o Tanggasamy, the contractor for a proposed building of the Singapore Tamil Movement, wished to borrow a sum of $17,201/= (Dollars seventeen thousand two hundred and one) from the said Singapore Tamil Movement through you, when in actual fact you intended to keep the money for yourself and thereby dishonestly induced the said Singapore Tamil Movement to deliver to you a sum of $17,201/= which amount of money would not have been delivered to you had the said Singapore Tamil Movement not been so deceived and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code Chapter 224."
DAC 6672/00 (exhibit P2)
"You, Velautham s/o Rengasamy, M/62 yrs old
NRIC No: S 0283615G
are charged that you, on a day in September 1998 in Singapore, did cheat by deceiving the Singapore Tamil Movement into believing that Silwaraju s/o Tanggasamy, the contractor for a proposed building of the Singapore Tamil Movement, wished to borrow a sum of $55,000/= (Dollars fifty five thousand) from the said Singapore Tamil Movement through you, when in actual fact you intended to keep the amount for yourself and thereby dishonestly induced the said Singapore Tamil Movement to deliver to you a sum of $55,000/=, which amount of money would not have been delivered to you had the said Singapore Tamil Movement not been so deceived and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code Chapter 224."
THE AGREED FACTS
2. The Prosecution's case was set out by the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor in a Statement which reads:
" The accused, Velautham S/O Rengasamy (B1), is the sole proprietor of Chinapoo Brothers, which is a neighbourhood minimart situated at the void deck of Block 54 Pipit Road. In Mar 96, he was appointed as the General Secretary of the Singapore Tamil Movement (STM).
2. On 31 Aug 99, Silwaraju S/O Tanggasamy (Silwa) (A1), Manager of Goldfinger Food & Leisure Pte Ltd made a complaint to the CPIB alleging that the accused had used his name to take money from STM.
3. Sometime in 1996, the STM called for tenders to build a two and a half storey building with complete fittings in return for free lease of the ground floor premises to be used as a restaurant.
4. Silwa (A1) participated in the tender and was awarded the project on 15 Sep 96. As part of the contract, Silwa would construct the building in return for the use of the ground floor of the premises as a restaurant for 15 years.
5. A supplement deed dated 15 Nov 96 (D1) was executed by the STM to confer this leasehold interest on Silwa.
6. The accused, in his capacity as General Secretary, was to ensure that the building of the new premises proceeded smoothly. He went down on site during the construction process to oversee its progress.
7. Sometime in 1997, in the midst of construction, there was a requirement by the Electrical Professional Engineer to upgrade the electrical supply from 150 KVA to 173 KVA. The original cost for the work was $17,201/=, while the new cost would be $23,696/=.
8. Silwa (A1) wrote to the STM informing them of this additional expense. This letter was discussed during the STM meeting held on 18 Mar 98 (minuted in D2), the accused was present but Silwa (A1) was not.
9. The STM decided to upgrade the electrical supply and agreed to compensate Silwa (A1) for the additional cost of $6,495/= for the upgrading.
10. During this meeting, the accused also informed Mohamed Jahabar s/o Sayabu Gani (Jahabar) (A2), Treasurer of STM for the period from Mar 96 to Mar 98, that Silwa did not have enough funds for the project and had requested a loan of the cost of the original electrical voltage work, which was $17,201/=, from STM.
11. The committee approved the request and a cheque (D3) of $23,696/= (17,201/= plus $6,495/=), was issued in favour of Silwa and handed over to the accused. Three persons signed the STM cheque dated 18th Mar 1998, they are Mohamed Jahabar s/o Sayabu Gani, Nallian Pakirisamy & the accused.
12. The accused then handed the cheque to Silwa and explained to the latter that the rest of the money, other than the upgrading fees were to be handed back to him as he needed the money for other expenses of STM. Silwa agreed as he did not want to antagonize the accused who might cause problems for him during the course of the building project.
13. Thereafter, the accused followed Silwa to the UCO Bank at Dunlop Street to cash the cheque. Silwa then handed over $17,201/= to the accused while keeping the balance of $6,495/= for himself.
14. Sometime in Aug 98, the accused again informed the STM committee that Silwa (A1) needed another loan of $55,000/= for the project. The STM committee approved it.
15. On 3rd Sep 98, Singaram s/o Ramasamy, Mohaidin Pichai and the accused signed a STM cash cheque for $55,000/= (D5). The last signatory, Mohaidin Pichai delivered it to the accused intending the same to be for Silwa.
16. However, the accused cashed the cheque and used the money to settle his personal debts.
17. Silwa (A1) never asked the accused to take any loan from STM in respects of the two sums of money, namely $17,201/= or $55,000/=.
18. Jahabar (A2) confirmed that during the meeting on 18 Mar 98, the accused informed STM committee that Silwa (A1) had wanted to borrow a sum of $17,201/=, which was the original cost for the electrical voltage work from STM. The loan was approved and a cheque was issued in the name of Silwa and handed over to the accused to be passed on to Silwa. He stated that if he had known that the money was not a loan for Silwa, he would not have issued the cheque.
19. Both Singaram s/o Ramasamy Pillai (A3), Chairman of STM, and Mohaidin Pichai s/o Mohamed Meerasa Rowther (A4), the current Treasurer of STM confirmed that the committee had approved a loan of $55,000/= to Silwa (A1) after the accuse informed them that it was meant for Silwa.
20. They confirmed that Silwa had never approached the committee himself and they would not have approved the loan if they had known that it was not meant for Silwa.
21. Singram s/o Suppiah (A5), the assistant General Secretary of the STM, confirmed that the accused had taken loans totaling about $20,000/= from him; out of which, the accused had returned $17,000/= cash to him sometime in Sep 98. He stated that the accused had explained that he (the accused) was able to repay the loan as he had taken a loan of $55,000/= from the STM using Silwa's (A1) name.
22. The accused in his statements dated 3rd September 1999, said that he had on March and September 1998 lied to the committee members of the STM that Silwa (A1) needed loans from STM. As a result, 2 STM cheques for amounts of $23,696/= and $55,000/= (totaling $78,696/=) were issued sometime in Mar 98 and Sep 98 respectively; out of which, he kept $72,201/= for himself, and had used the money to settle his personal debts."
3. The Defence agreed to the contents of the above Statement except for certain portions thereof. The parts the Defence denied and disputed and its own version of events were set out in its Statement which reads:
"Paragraph 1
1) Accused is not the Sole-Proprietor of "Chinapoo Brothers". His Wife is the owner of the said Chinapoo Brothers.
Paragraph 12
2) The contents of Paragraph 12 are denied and disputed.
STM made out a cheque of $23,696 on 18/3/98 in favour of Silwa to include the fees payable by the STM for the additional fees and the original amount payable by Silwa.
No such request was made by the Accused as stated in the said Paragraph 12. The Accused did borrow a sum of $15,000 from Silwa as a personal loan which amount has since been returned.
Paragraph 13
Silwa handed over a sum of $15,000 only as a personal loan to the Accused.
Paragraph 14
The facts set out in Paragraph 14 are denied and disputed. In actual fact the loan of $55,000 had already been made to Silwa sometime between December 1997 and April 1998. The sum of $55,000 was not handed to Silwa as a lump sum payment but rather was given to him in 4 payments.
The sum of $55,000 paid out by STM was in fact a sum to be repaid to the various people who had advanced the loan of $55,000 earlier to Silwa.
Paragraph 15
The facts set out in the second sentence of Paragraph 15 are denied. The sum of $55,000 was not for Silwa but to be repaid to the various people who had advanced the loan of $55,000 earlier to Silwa.
Paragraph 16
The facts herein are denied and disputed. Silwa did ask for financial assistance on two occasions and the accused helped him by obtaining assistance from STM.
Paragraph 17
The facts herein are denied and disputed. Silwa did ask for financial assistance on two occasions and the accused helped him by obtaining such loans.
Paragraph 21
The facts as set herein are denied and disputed. The accused did not take any loans from Singaram s/o Suppiah. The accused never stated that he had taken a loan of $55,000 from STM.
Paragraph 22
The facts as set out herein are denied and disputed. No such admissions were made by the Accused."
4. The Prosecution's Statement and that of the Defence were...
To continue reading
Request your trial