Selvarajoo v PP: Criminal Revision for Cheating Conviction Based on Fresh Evidence

Selvarajoo s/o Malayappan Krishsamy petitioned the High Court of Singapore for a criminal revision of his conviction for cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code. He was originally convicted by a District Judge for dishonestly inducing a delivery of property. Selvarajoo sought to introduce a commission agreement as fresh evidence, arguing it undermined the basis of his conviction. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the petition, finding the commission agreement inadmissible as fresh evidence and that the conviction was based on the oral representation made by the petitioner to Mrs. Jaganathan.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Petition dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Criminal revision petition by Selvarajoo, convicted of cheating, sought to adduce fresh evidence. The court dismissed the petition, finding the evidence inadmissible.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyPetition dismissedWon
Amarjit Singh of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Selvarajoo s/o Malayappan KrishsamyPetitionerIndividualPetition dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Amarjit SinghDeputy Public Prosecutor
M RaviM Ravi and Co

4. Facts

  1. The petitioner was convicted of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code.
  2. The petitioner offered to help Mr. and Mrs. Jaganathan with a mortgage refinancing transaction.
  3. Mrs. Jaganathan paid the petitioner $14,000 after he mentioned that the sum was to be shared with a bank manager.
  4. The petitioner claimed that Mrs. Jaganathan agreed to pay a 4% commission in the presence of her husband.
  5. The petitioner sought to adduce a commission agreement as fresh evidence during the criminal revision.
  6. The district judge found Mrs. Jaganathan to be a largely honest and consistent witness.
  7. The district judge found the petitioner's testimony to be unconvincing and highlighted discrepancies.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Selvarajoo s/o Malayappan Krishsamy v Public Prosecutor, Cr Rev 15/2003, [2004] SGHC 39

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Application for mortgage refinancing transaction submitted to Overseas Union Trust.
Mortgage refinancing transaction completed.
Mrs. Jaganathan passed a cheque to the petitioner.
Petitioner gave statement to Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau officer.
Criminal revision filed.
High Court dismissed the petition for criminal revision.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the commission agreement was inadmissible as fresh evidence because the petitioner failed to meet the conditions of non-availability, relevance, and reliability.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-availability of evidence at trial
      • Relevance of evidence to the case
      • Reliability of evidence
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 3 All ER 745
      • [1993] 3 SLR 338
      • [1995] 1 SLR 687
      • [1998] 3 SLR 638
      • [2000] 1 SLR 439
      • [2003] 3 SLR 390
      • [1998] 3 SLR 788
  2. Cheating
    • Outcome: The court upheld the original conviction for cheating, finding that the district judge's decision was based on the oral representation made by the petitioner, not the absence of the commission agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Dishonest inducement
      • Delivery of property

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing of conviction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Cheating

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Juma’at bin Samad v PPHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR 338SingaporeCited for the procedure to adduce fresh evidence.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PPHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 SLR 687SingaporeCited for the procedure to adduce fresh evidence.
Chan Chun Yee v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 638SingaporeCited for the procedure to adduce fresh evidence.
Tan Sai Tiang v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR 439SingaporeCited for the procedure to adduce fresh evidence.
Ladd v MarshallCourt of AppealYes[1954] 3 All ER 745England and WalesCited for the three conditions of non-availability, relevance and reliability for admitting fresh evidence.
Tan Puay Boon v PPHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR 390SingaporeCited for affirming the conditions in Ladd v Marshall for admitting fresh evidence.
Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 788SingaporeCited for the principle that additional evidence should be apparently credible without further proof.
Teo Hee Heng v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR 168SingaporeCited for the principle that a serious injustice must have been caused to warrant the exercise of the court’s powers of revision.
Mok Swee Kok v PPCourt of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR 140SingaporeCited for the principle that a serious injustice must have been caused to warrant the exercise of the court’s powers of revision.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 257(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 268(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Criminal revision
  • Fresh evidence
  • Cheating
  • Commission agreement
  • Dishonest inducement
  • Mortgage refinancing
  • Representation
  • Non-availability
  • Relevance
  • Reliability

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal revision
  • Cheating
  • Fresh evidence
  • Singapore
  • Penal Code
  • Criminal Procedure Code

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit80
Criminal Revision75
Criminal Procedure70
Evidence65
Sentencing60
Criminal Law60
Admissibility of evidence50
Theft40
Mortgage Refinancing35
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Evidence