Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP: False Claim, Solicitor's Duty, and Penal Code Interpretation
In Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered Criminal Motion No 14 of 2009, Criminal Appeal No 6 of 2009, and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2009, involving Bachoo Mohan Singh's conviction under Section 209 of the Penal Code for making a false claim. The Court addressed issues related to the interpretation of Section 209, the duties of solicitors, and the requirements for reserving questions of law of public interest. Ultimately, the Court granted an extension of time to both the Prosecution and Bachoo Mohan Singh to apply to the High Court Judge for leave to raise questions to the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Extension of time granted to both the Prosecution and Bachoo Mohan Singh to apply to the High Court Judge for leave to raise questions to the Court of Appeal.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal addresses false claim conviction, solicitor's duty, and interpretation of Section 209 of the Penal Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bachoo Mohan Singh | Appellant, Applicant, Respondent | Individual | Extension of time granted to apply to the High Court Judge for leave to raise questions to the Court of Appeal | Partial | Michael Hwang, Ang Cheng Hock, Eugene Thuraisingam |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Applicant | Government Agency | Extension of time granted to apply to the High Court Judge for leave to raise questions to the Court of Appeal | Partial | Jennifer Marie, Lee Sing Lit, Tan Boon Khai, Kan Shuk Weng, Kenneth Yap |
| Law Society of Singapore | Other | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | Wong Meng Meng, Fay Fong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Hwang | Chambers of Michael Hwang SC |
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Stamford Law Corporation |
| Jennifer Marie | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Lee Sing Lit | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Tan Boon Khai | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Kan Shuk Weng | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Kenneth Yap | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Wong Meng Meng | WongPartnership |
| Fay Fong | WongPartnership |
4. Facts
- Bachoo Mohan Singh, an advocate and solicitor, was convicted under s 209 of the Penal Code.
- The conviction stemmed from a claim filed on behalf of his client regarding the sale of a flat.
- The selling price of the flat was allegedly inflated to facilitate a cash-back arrangement.
- BMS filed a statement of claim based on the inflated price, leading to the charge of making a false claim.
- The District Judge relied on an Indian case to determine that the claim was false.
- The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence.
- BMS sought to reserve questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal, which was initially dismissed.
5. Formal Citations
- Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and Other Applications, Cr M 14/2009, 30/2009, CA 6/2009, [2009] SGCA 59
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Buyers granted an Option to Purchase the flat at a price of $490,000. | |
| Buyers exercised the Option to Purchase. | |
| First appointment at the Housing and Development Board. | |
| Complaints lodged with the police. | |
| Meeting held at M/s K K Yap. | |
| Complaints lodged with the Housing and Development Board and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. | |
| Flat sold for $380,000. | |
| Letter of demand sent to the Buyers. | |
| Article published in the Straits Times. | |
| Meeting held at the Marina Mandarin Singapore hotel. | |
| Writ of summons filed by M/s K K Yap on behalf of the Sellers. | |
| Suit discontinued. | |
| District Judge's decision in PP v Bachoo Mohan Singh. | |
| High Court dismissed BMS’s appeal on conviction and partially allowed BMS’s appeal on sentence. | |
| BMS applied to reserve questions of law of public interest for the Court of Appeal’s decision in CM 5/2009. | |
| High Court dismissed CM 5/2009 and BMS personally filed CM 14/2009. | |
| CM 14/2009 and CCA 6/2009 fixed for hearing. | |
| The Prosecution wrote to inform this Court that it would be applying to the court for an extension of time under s 60(2) of the SCJA. | |
| The Prosecution filed Criminal Motion No 30 of 2009. | |
| Initial responses from BMS received. | |
| Initial responses from the Law Society received. | |
| Parties invited to make their final observations on the questions of law of public interest. | |
| The Prosecution wrote again and made further submissions in respect of both s 60(2) applications. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Section 209 of the Penal Code
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time to both the Prosecution and Bachoo Mohan Singh to apply to the High Court Judge for leave to raise questions to the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Meaning of 'false claim'
- Meaning of 'dishonestly'
- Application of Section 209 to solicitors
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 3 SLR 1037
- Bulaki Ram (1890) 10 AWN 1
- Solicitor's Duty in Preparing Pleadings
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time to both the Prosecution and Bachoo Mohan Singh to apply to the High Court Judge for leave to raise questions to the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Extent of duty to verify client's instructions
- Reliance on client's version of events
- Duty to disclose adverse facts
- Related Cases:
- [1988] SLR 510
- Requirements for Reserving Questions of Law of Public Interest
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time to both the Prosecution and Bachoo Mohan Singh to apply to the High Court Judge for leave to raise questions to the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- What constitutes a question of law of public interest
- Whether the determination of the question affected the outcome of the case
- Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 2 SLR 247
- [1998] 1 SLR 162
- [1990] SLR 301
8. Remedies Sought
- Review and set aside the High Court Judge’s decision
- Determination of the question of public interest by the Court of Appeal
- Setting aside the conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Making a false claim
- Abetment
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Beng Leong v PP (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 247 | Singapore | Cited for the four requirements that have to be satisfied before the High Court can grant leave to reserve any questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal. |
| PP v Bridges Christopher | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 162 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proceedings commenced and determined in the Subordinate Courts are to end in the High Court with, generally, no further recourse or avenue for appeal. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 301 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is in the public interest that a person who has been wrongly convicted of any offence should be able to have it corrected on appeal. |
| Ng Ai Tiong v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 358 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the discretion to allow an application under s 60(1) of the SCJA is to be exercised sparingly. |
| Cigar Affair v PP | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 648 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the HC Judge hearing the s 60 application conceivably has the discretion to refuse to refer the question of law of public interest stated by the applicant even if all the conditions thereof have been satisfied, unless it is raised by the Public Prosecutor. |
| A Ragunathan v Pendakwa Raya | Federal Court of Malaysia | Yes | [1982] 1 MLJ 139 | Malaysia | Cited for the test for determining whether a question of law raised in the course of the appeal is of public interest. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 235 | Singapore | Cited for referring to the observations of the Malaysian Federal Court in A Ragunathan v Pendakwa Raya. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 687 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a question of personal importance primarily to a convicted person alone cannot be referred to the Court of Appeal. |
| Jeyaretnam JB v Law Society of Singapore | Privy Council | Yes | [1988] SLR 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the view that a serious question of law arising in a criminal case on which a person’s conviction of a grave offence may depend was of public interest. |
| Jeyaretnam JB v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 594 | Singapore | Cited as an example of questions raising constitutional rights being apt for reference to the Court of Appeal for its determination. |
| PP v Bridges Christopher | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 217 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court judge hearing the application to reserve questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal has the discretion to restate the questions proposed to ensure that they conform to s 60 of the SCJA. |
| PP v Fernandez Joseph Ferdinent | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal, in deciding the questions of law of public interest reserved by the High Court, has the power to reframe the question to achieve clarity. |
| Wong Hong Toy v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 298 | Singapore | Cited for the issue of whether the HC Judge’s decision not to refer the questions of law of public interest was made in exercise of the High Court’s original or appellate criminal jurisdiction or some other special jurisdiction. |
| Mohamed Razip v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR 142 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the words ‘any decision made by the High Court’ in s 44(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act were inserted to accommodate appeals by the Public Prosecutor. |
| Ang Cheng Hai v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the issue of whether the appellants had the right to appeal against the High Court’s decision not to transfer the proceedings to the High Court from the Subordinate Courts. |
| Microsoft Corporation v SM Summit Holdings | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 137 | Singapore | Cited for the issue of whether the Chief Justice’s refusal to release or vary the undertaking given in relation to certain search warrants in the High Court was one made in exercise of the High Court’s original jurisdiction. |
| Kiew Ah Cheng David v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 1188 | Singapore | Cited for the appellant seeking to appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant an extension of time to file his notice of appeal and petition of appeal, both against conviction. |
| Ng Chye Huey v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 106 | Singapore | Cited for the appellants filing a motion in the High Court for three orders, in exercise of the High Court’s supervisory and appellate jurisdiction. |
| Regina v Ashdown | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1974] 1 WLR 270 | England | Cited by the Prosecution in support of the argument that the applicant may only make one application under section 60 of the SCJA. Distinguished by the court. |
| Regina v Grantham | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1969] 2 QB 574 | England | Cited in Regina v Ashdown. Distinguished by the court. |
| Tee Kok Boon v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] SGCA 16 | Singapore | Cited for the applicant applying to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time (under s 60(2) of the SCJA) to apply to the High Court under s 60(1) of the SCJA. |
| Harbhajan Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1980] 1 MLJ 322 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the Court of Appeal sees merit in the application, it will grant an extension of time to make an application under s 60(1) of the SCJA. |
| Salwant Singh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 36 | Singapore | Cited for the approach adopted by this Court in respect of an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under s 50 of the SCJA. |
| Lim Hong Kheng v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 358 | Singapore | Cited for the approach adopted by Sundaresh Menon JC in respect of an application for an extension of time to file a petition of appeal under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Anuar bin Othman v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 1180 | Singapore | Cited for the court, in an exceptional case, granting an extension of time to file a petition of appeal after an 18-month delay. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1988] SLR 510 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no legal duty on the part of a solicitor to verify the instructions of his client unless he himself has personal knowledge of the matter or unless his client’s statements are inherently incredible or logically impossible. |
| Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys | House of Lords | Yes | [1977] 1 AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the House of Lords adopting the view that the doctrine of issue estoppel was not applicable to criminal law. |
| R v Mahalingan | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2008] 3 SCR 316 | Canada | Cited for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada taking the view that the doctrine of issue estoppel was applicable in certain circumstances. |
| AG v Tee Kok Boon | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 412 | Singapore | Cited for the Attorney-General obtaining an order under s 74(1) of the SCJA restraining the initiation of any further proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 209 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 60 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 29A(2) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- False claim
- Dishonestly
- Public interest
- Solicitor's duty
- Cash-back arrangement
- Statement of claim
- Extension of time
- Abetment
- Pleadings
15.2 Keywords
- False claim
- Solicitor
- Penal Code
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Appeal
- Public Interest
- Section 209
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure
- Legal Ethics
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Penal Code
- Solicitor's Duty
- Civil Procedure