Rajendar Prasad Rai v Public Prosecutor: Revision of Order for Seizure of Property under Criminal Procedure Code

Rajendar Prasad Rai and Gurchandni Kaur Charan Singh applied to the High Court of Singapore to revise a Magistrate's order extending the seizure of their property under the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court, presided over by Sundaresh Menon CJ, allowed the application, setting aside the Magistrate's order due to significant irregularities in the basis for the seizure and the lack of sufficient evidence presented by the Prosecution.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Applicants' motion granted; Magistrate's Order set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court allowed the applicants' motion, setting aside the Magistrate's order to extend the seizure of funds, finding irregularities in the order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyOrder Set AsideLost
Tan Zhongshan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Stacey Fernandez of Attorney-General’s Chambers
G Kannan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Zhuo Wenzhao of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Navin Naidu of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Rajendar Prasad RaiApplicantIndividualMotion GrantedWon
Gurchandni Kaur Charan SinghApplicantIndividualMotion GrantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan ZhongshanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Stacey FernandezAttorney-General’s Chambers
G KannanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Zhuo WenzhaoAttorney-General’s Chambers
Navin NaiduAttorney-General’s Chambers
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Jason LimStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. The 1st Applicant was arrested by CPIB on 26 September 2015 and charged with six counts under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
  2. The Applicants' bank accounts were seized by the CPIB in October 2015.
  3. Caveats were lodged on three of the Applicants’ properties.
  4. The Prosecution sought to extend the seizure of three bank accounts for investigations into CDSA offences.
  5. The Magistrate extended the seizure of the three bank accounts until 30 June 2017.
  6. The Prosecution later argued that the seizure was necessary to prevent dissipation of funds for a possible confiscation order.
  7. The Prosecution contended that the Applicants’ assets were connected to the existing PCA offences.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter, , [2017] SGHC 49

6. Timeline

DateEvent
1st Applicant arrested by Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau
Caveats lodged by Registrar over three of the Applicants’ properties
Funds in ten bank accounts belonging to the Applicants seized by the CPIB
CPIB issued first report listing ten bank accounts that had been seized
CPIB issued second report indicating only three of the ten accounts remained relevant
Parties appeared before the learned District Judge for the s 370 Hearing
Magistrate concluded that the three remaining bank accounts remained relevant
Applicants filed CM 71/2016 and CM 72/2016, seeking the release of the Seized Funds and the Caveated Properties
Parties appeared before the High Court
Parties appeared before the High Court
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Revision of Proceedings
    • Outcome: The High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the Magistrate's Order.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Seizure of Property
    • Outcome: The High Court found that the Magistrate's Order to extend the seizure of funds was not justified based on the evidence presented.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Release of seized funds
  2. Release of caveated properties
  3. Setting aside the decision of the court below

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin AnharCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 447SingaporeCited regarding the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction and the consideration of new evidence in reviewing a lower court's decision.
Public Prosecutor v Yang YinHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 78SingaporeCited for the principle that the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only when there is a serious injustice.
Ang Poh Chuan v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 929SingaporeCited for the principle that the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only when there is a serious injustice.
Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matterUnknownYes[2016] 1 SLR 779SingaporeCited for the principle that all power has legal limits.
Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appealsUnknownYes[1988] 2 SLR(R) 525SingaporeCited for the principle that all power has legal limits.
Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin AnharHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited regarding the High Court's power to alter or reverse an order of a lower court.
Halley v The Law SocietyEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2003] EWCA Civ 97England and WalesCited for the principle that an offender has no basis for asserting any enforceable proprietary interest in property that is the fruits or traceable proceeds of an identifiable crime.
Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Charles Warwick Reid and othersPrivy CouncilYes[1994] 1 AC 324Hong KongCited for the principle that a constructive trust would arise where a person procures a transfer of property to himself by fraud, bribery, or breach of trust.
Forskett v McKeown and othersHouse of LordsYes[2001] 1 AC 102United KingdomCited for the principle that tracing enables the claimant to substitute the traceable proceeds for the original asset as the subject matter of his claim.
Mustafa Ahunbay v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 903SingaporeCited for the principle that the word 'satisfied' in s 370(3) of the CPC 'would necessarily connote consideration and judgment'.
Sim Cheng Ho and another v Lee Eng SoonUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 190SingaporeCited as a local case in which the Police exercised powers of seizure under s 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed).
Public Prosecutor v Intra Group (Holdings) Co IncUnknownYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 154SingaporeCited as a local case in which the Police exercised powers of seizure under s 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed).
State of Maharashtra v Tapas D. NeogyIndian Supreme CourtYes(1999) 3 A.Cr.R. 2154IndiaCited for the principle that a bank account could be seized under s 102(1) of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, which is in pari materia with s 68 of the 1985 CPC.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)Singapore
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Serious Offences (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 7(1)(b) of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Seizure
  • Revisionary Jurisdiction
  • Confiscation
  • Proceeds of Crime
  • CDSA
  • PCA offences
  • Magistrate's Order
  • Caveated Properties
  • Seized Funds

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Seizure
  • Revision
  • Corruption
  • CDSA
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sentencing90
Criminal Procedure90
Prevention of Corruption Act75
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act75
Property Law50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Seizure of Property
  • Revision of Proceedings