Bijabahadur Rai v Public Prosecutor: Assisting Illegal Lottery & Common Gaming Houses Act

Bijabahadur Rai appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Judge for assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery under s 5(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act. The High Court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, allowed the appeal, setting aside the original conviction and sentence. However, the court found Bijabahadur Rai guilty of a lesser offence under s 9(1) of the Common Gaming Houses Act read with ss 107 and 109 of the Penal Code, for abetting the placement of an illegal bet. The court sentenced him to a fine of $1,000, in default one week’s imprisonment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Bijabahadur Rai appealed against his conviction for assisting in carrying on a public lottery. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding him guilty of a lesser charge.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyPartial LossPartial
Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Christine Liu of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Bijabahadur Rai s/o Shree KantraiAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in part, convicted of lesser chargePartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Terence ChuaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Christine LiuAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wee Pan LeeWee, Tay & Lim LLP
Phipps JonathanWee, Tay & Lim LLP

4. Facts

  1. Bijabahadur Rai was charged with assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery.
  2. Rai received a bet of S$30 from Jasbir Singh for an illegal "TOTO" public lottery.
  3. CID officers raided Rai's residence and seized a handphone used in connection with illegal soccer betting activities.
  4. A forensic examination revealed messages between Rai and Jasbir concerning the placement of the illegal TOTO bet.
  5. Jasbir pleaded guilty to placing a bet on an illegal TOTO lottery.
  6. Rai claimed he merely forwarded Jasbir’s text to a bookie, Kenny.
  7. The District Judge disbelieved Rai's testimony that he was not a bookie.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Bijabahadur Rai s/o Shree Kantrai v Public Prosecutor, , [2017] SGHC 161

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Illegal TOTO bet placed by Jasbir Singh
CID officers conducted a raid at the Appellant’s residence
Jasbir Singh pleaded guilty to placing an illegal bet
Magistrate’s Appeal No 9186 of 2016/01
Jasbir Singh's examination
Bijabahadur Rai's examination
Bijabahadur Rai's examination
Bijabahadur Rai's examination
Hearing for appeal
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery
    • Outcome: The court held that s 5(a) of the CGHA does not extend to an accused who merely helps a punter to place bets with a bookie in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate the accused’s purpose to assist the bookie.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] SGMC 41
      • [2007] SGMC 12
      • [1964] MLJ 172
      • [1893] SSLR 117
  2. Abetment of placing an illegal bet
    • Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of abetting the placement of an illegal bet under s 9(1) of the CGHA read with ss 107 and 109 of the Penal Code.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction and sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery
  • Abetment

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Bijabahadur Rai s/o Shree KantraiDistrict CourtYes[2016] SGMC 41SingaporeThe District Judge's decision which the appeal was against.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Yong MengMagistrate’s CourtYes[2007] SGMC 12SingaporeCited for guidance on the meaning of 'assists' in s 5(a) of the CGHA, but the test adopted was disagreed with because it cast the net too widely.
Lee Hwa Liang v PPHigh CourtYes[1964] MLJ 172MalaysiaCited for the principle that the demarcation line between assisting and not assisting is to be found in the nexus between the party alleged to be assisting and the party carrying on a lottery.
Leong Yeok v ReginaCourt of Appeal of the Straits SettlementsYes[1893] SSLR 117SingaporeCited for the proposition that there will only be criminal liability where an overt act is performed by the accused in connection with the operation of a public lottery.
Chong Chee Pak v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1948] supp MLJ 45MalaysiaCited for the interpretation of assisting in the carrying on as some overt act directly connected with the promotion of the lottery.
Ng Sui Nam v Butterworths & Co (Publishers) Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[1987] SLR(R) 171SingaporeCited to state that decisions made by the Court of Appeal of the Straits Settlements are binding.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5(a)Singapore
Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed) s 9(1)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 107Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 109Singapore
Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed) s 5(3)(a)Singapore
Common Gaming Houses Act s 2(1)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1997 Rev Ed) s 6Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Public lottery
  • Illegal TOTO
  • Bookie
  • Assisting
  • Overt act
  • Nexus
  • Abetment
  • Common Gaming Houses Act
  • Penal Code

15.2 Keywords

  • Common Gaming Houses Act
  • Public Lottery
  • Abetment
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Common Gaming Houses Act95
Criminal Law90
Statutory offences85
Abetment80
Elements of crime70
Actus Reus60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Gambling Law