Public Prosecutor v Punithan: Drug Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act and Penal Code

In Public Prosecutor v Punithan a/l Genasan, the High Court of Singapore convicted Punithan a/l Genasan for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Penal Code. The prosecution argued that Punithan was the mastermind behind a drug transaction involving V Shanmugam a/l Veloo and Mohd Suief bin Ismail, who transported and delivered diamorphine. The court found that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Punithan was complicit in the drug transaction, directing the couriers and coordinating the transport and delivery of the controlled drugs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

I find that the Prosecution has proven the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and I convict him accordingly.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Punithan was convicted for drug trafficking, masterminding the transport of diamorphine. The court found he directed couriers in the illegal act.

1.7 Decision Date

14 May 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Won	Won	Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas of Attorney-General’s Chambers Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Punithan a/l Genasan	Defendant	Individual	Lost	Lost	Peter Keith Fernando of Leo Fernando LLC Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam of Oon & Bazul LLP Chia Kok Seng of KSCGP Juris LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Terence Chua	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Peter Keith Fernando	Leo Fernando LLC
Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam	Oon & Bazul LLP
Chia Kok Seng	KSCGP Juris LLP

4. Facts

Punithan was charged with drug trafficking with V Shanmugam a/l Veloo and Mohd Suief bin Ismail.
Shanmugam and Suief were previously convicted for trafficking not less than 28.50g of diamorphine.
Punithan was not in Singapore on 28 October 2011.
Shanmugam entered Singapore on 28 October 2011 driving a vehicle with license plate no. JLT 8467.
Shanmugam picked up Suief from a bus stop at Haw Par Villa before driving to an Esso petrol kiosk.
Suief alighted from the car carrying a black plastic bag containing three bundles of diamorphine.
Three bundles of diamorphine were found inside the Black Plastic Bag at Block 405 Pandan Gardens.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Punithan a/l Genasan, Criminal Case No 2 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 98

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-10-12	Accused last entered and left Singapore
2011-10-12	Accused introduced Shanmugam to Suief at West Coast McDonald’s
2011-10-28	Shanmugam transported controlled drugs into Singapore
2011-10-28	Couriers trafficked not less than 28.50g of diamorphine
2014-02-25	Warrant of arrest applied for the accused
2015-02-03	Shanmugam and Suief convicted after a joint trial
2016-01-16	Accused arrested in Malaysia
2016-01-21	Accused extradited to Singapore
2018-01-11	Trial began
2020-03-02	Judgment reserved
2020-05-15	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court convicted the accused of drug trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 721
  - [2010] 4 SLR 1119
Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the accused shared a common intention with the couriers to traffic drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 721
  - [2010] 4 SLR 1119
Accomplice Evidence
- Outcome: The court considered the implications of the couriers' status as convicted accomplices but found their testimony credible.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1995] 3 SLR(R) 404
Rule in Browne v Dunn
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution's lapse did not preclude it from submitting that the accused contacted the Couriers and gave them instructions pertaining to the Drug Transaction, and that the accused had done so through the Mobile Phone Number.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - 6 R 67

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction
Sentencing

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation
Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PP v V Shanmugam a/l Veloo and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 33	Singapore	Cited for the convictions of V Shanmugam a/l Veloo and Mohd Suief bin Ismail for trafficking in not less 28.50g of diamorphine.
Mohd Suief bin Ismail v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 893	Singapore	Cited for upholding the convictions and sentences of V Shanmugam a/l Veloo and Mohd Suief bin Ismail.
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 721	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing the interplay between s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and s 34 of the Penal Code.
Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v PP	Unknown	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 1119	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of s 34 of the Penal Code is to impute constructive liability on a secondary offender.
Tan Khee Koon v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 404	Singapore	Cited for the principle that accomplice evidence ought to be treated with more caution than normal.
Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 771	Singapore	Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn requires that where a submission is going to be made about a witness or the evidence given by the witness which is of such a nature and of such importance that it ought fairly to have been put to the witness.
Awtar Singh s/o Margar Singh v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 435	Singapore	Cited for the rationale behind the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292	Singapore	Cited for the rule does not require every point to be put to a witness but this would generally be required when the submission is at the “very heart of the matter”.
Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 606	Singapore	Cited for a failure to do so may mean that the court may consider the unchallenged testimony to be undisputed by the opposing party and thus accepted.
Browne v Dunn	Unknown	Yes	6 R 67	England and Wales	Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn is a flexible rule of practice intended to secure procedural fairness in litigation.
Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] SGCA 33	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for a Lucas lie to amount to a corroboration of evidence of guilt.
Public Prosecutor v Heah Lian Khin	Unknown	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 745	Singapore	Cited for the relevant considerations in estimating the weight of statements admitted under s 147(3) of the Evidence Act.
Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2001] SGHC 333	Singapore	Cited for the principle that exonerating evidence from an interested witness must be treated with caution.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act s 33(1)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116	Singapore
Evidence Act s 147(3)	Singapore
Evidence Act s 147(6)	Singapore
Evidence Act s 32(1)(j)(iii)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Drug trafficking
Common intention
Couriers
Mastermind
Controlled drugs
Extradition
Accomplice
Lucas lie
Alibi

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Singapore
Criminal Law
Misuse of Drugs Act
Penal Code
Diamorphine
Common intention

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	90
Drug Trafficking	85
Penal Code	70
Criminal Procedure	60
Sentencing	50
Evidence	40

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Evidence