Public Prosecutor v Ramendra Krishnan [2021] SGHC 242

"In the present case, the Prosecution’s application to amend the existing charge and to frame new charges came relatively late in the day, only after the close of the accused’s defence. However, the substance of the proposed charges was substantially similar to the original charge ... As such, I was satisfied that no prejudice would be occasioned to the accused, and I exercised my powers under s 128(1) of the CPC to alter the existing charge and to frame the additional two charges." — Per Ang Cheng Hock J, Para 22

Case Information

• Citation: [2021] SGHC 242
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
• Decision Date: 25 October 2021
• Coram: Ang Cheng Hock J
• Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Mark Jayaratnam and Benedict Chan Wei Qi (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution (Para 0)
• Counsel for Defendant/Respondent: Peter Keith Fernando and Kavita Pandey (Leo Fernando LLC), Subir Singh Grewal (Aequitas Law LLP) for the accused (Para 0)
• Case Number: Criminal Case No 22 of 2021 (Para 0)
• Area of Law: Criminal Law — Offences — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act (Para 0)
• Judgment Length: Approximately 28 paragraphs in the supplied text; the full judgment is longer than the excerpt provided (Paras 1–28)

Summary

Ang Cheng Hock J tried Ramendra Krishnan on a drug trafficking charge arising from the seizure of five “books” of cannabis weighing not less than 3,105g in total. The court recorded that Ramendra had arranged to collect the drugs through a supplier known as “Joe”, travelled to multiple locations to obtain them, and ultimately fled from CNB officers before throwing the backpack containing the drugs into a canal. The Prosecution’s case was built on the seizure, the analysis of the drugs, and Ramendra’s statements admitting knowledge that the “books” contained cannabis. (Paras 1–10, 11, 16)

After the close of the defence, the Prosecution sought to amend the original trafficking charge and to frame two additional charges, splitting the five “books” into separate trafficking and possession counts. The court allowed the amendment under s 128(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the amended and additional charges were substantially similar to the original charge, the Defence had an opportunity to meet them, and no prejudice was shown. Ramendra then pleaded not guilty to all three charges. (Paras 18–23)

The judgment sets out the legal elements for trafficking under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and possession under s 8(a), emphasising that possession includes “knowing possession”. The excerpt also shows the court relying on prior authorities for the elements of the offences and for the test governing amendments to charges. The remainder of the judgment is not included in the supplied text, so the final verdict on each charge is not available in this excerpt. (Paras 24–26, 22)

What Were the Circumstances Leading to Ramendra’s Arrest?

Ramendra was 53 years old at the time of arrest and was living with his girlfriend, Sherryl Versoza Dela Cruz, in Ang Mo Kio. He was not working then, having lost his job as a taxi driver about six months earlier, and he said he was a habitual cannabis consumer. On 28 March 2017, he received a call from his supplier “Joe” about “books” coming into Singapore, which the judgment explains referred to rectangular blocks of cannabis. (Paras 1–4)

Ramendra first attempted to collect the drugs from locations in Tuas and Woodlands but did not succeed. Later, Joe instructed him to pick up the “book” from a person at Marsiling MRT station. Ramendra and Sherryl took a taxi there, met Lavinder Shanmuganathan, and entered another taxi with Lavinder. (Paras 3–7)

In the taxi, Lavinder had five “books” rather than one, and they were placed into Ramendra’s backpack. Ramendra then directed the taxi towards the Seletar area, but CNB officers were already following the taxi. When the officers closed in, Ramendra ran, threw the backpack into a canal, and was arrested. The backpack was recovered and found to contain the five “books”. (Paras 7–10)

What Was the Original Charge?

The original charge alleged trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It stated that Ramendra, on 28 March 2017 at about 6.55pm in Singapore, had in his possession for the purpose of trafficking inside taxi SHC 3220B five blocks containing not less than 3,105g of vegetable matter analysed and found to be cannabis, without authorisation. The charge was punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA. (Para 1)

The court noted that the five “books” were the subject of the charge and that the total cannabis weight was not less than 3,105g. The exhibit breakdown showed the five blocks as A1A1A, A1B1A, A1C1A, A1D1A and A1E1A, with individual weights listed in the judgment. (Paras 9–10)

What Did the Prosecution and Defence Agree or Dispute at Trial?

The Prosecution called 45 witnesses, including Sherryl and Lavinder. The Defence did not dispute the chain of custody for the five “books” or the drug analysis, and Ramendra did not dispute the voluntariness or admissibility of his statements to CNB officers. Those matters were therefore not in issue. (Para 11)

Ramendra’s defence at trial was that he expected to receive only one “book” for himself, and that he was surprised when five “books” were transferred into his backpack. He said Joe then asked him to help deliver four “books” to a person at Jalan Kayu, and that he intended to keep only one “book” for personal consumption and sale in part. He also said he would have gone to Seletar Mall to await further instructions if he had not been arrested. (Paras 12–15)

The Prosecution relied on Ramendra’s recorded statements, which were said to be materially consistent with his oral evidence, because he admitted knowing the “books” contained cannabis and that they were in his backpack when he threw it into the canal. The Prosecution and Defence both took the position that two later statements under s 22 of the CPC, in which Ramendra claimed Sherryl was the collector, were untrue and should be disregarded. (Paras 16–17)

Why Did the Court Allow the Charge to Be Amended?

After trial but before written closing submissions, the Prosecution sought to amend the original charge and frame two new charges. The amended first charge dealt with four of the “books” and the new second and third charges dealt with the remaining block, split into a trafficking count for a portion and a possession count for another portion. The Prosecution proceeded on the assumption that Ramendra would keep one block and deliver the other four. (Paras 18–20)

The Defence did not object, and neither side sought to adduce fresh evidence or recall witnesses. The court applied the prejudice-based approach to amendments under s 128(1) of the CPC, citing Public Prosecutor v Soh Chee Wen and another and Goh Chin Soon v Public Prosecutor. Because the amended charges were substantially similar to the original charge and the Defence had an opportunity to meet them, the court found no prejudice and allowed the amendment. (Paras 21–22)

What Were the Legal Elements the Court Identified?

For a charge under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA, the court stated that the Prosecution must prove possession of a controlled drug, knowledge of the nature of the drug, and that possession was for the purpose of trafficking and was unauthorised. For a charge under s 8(a), the elements are possession, knowledge of the nature of the drug, and unauthorised possession. (Paras 24–25)

The court further noted that possession includes not only physical possession but also knowledge that the drug is in the accused’s possession, custody or control. The judgment described this as “knowing possession”. This distinction was important because the charges depended not merely on physical custody of the backpack, but on Ramendra’s awareness of what it contained. (Para 26)

How Did the Court Frame the Prosecution’s Case?

The Prosecution argued that the elements of the s 5(1)(a) and s 8(a) charges were established. The excerpt specifically records that Ramendra was found in possession of the five “books” of cannabis, which were the subject of the charges. The judgment excerpt ends while setting out the Prosecution’s case, so the full reasoning is not available here. (Paras 27–28)

From the facts recorded earlier in the judgment, the Prosecution’s case rested on Ramendra’s collection of the drugs, his conduct in the taxi, his flight from CNB officers, and his recorded admissions. Those facts were used to support possession, knowledge, and trafficking purpose. (Paras 3–10, 16, 27–28)

What Did the Court Say About the Defence Version?

Ramendra’s oral evidence was that he had agreed to buy only one “book” for $2,000, that Joe later asked him to help deliver four “books” to Jalan Kayu, and that he intended to keep one “book” for himself. He also said he would have consumed about 20% of that “book” and sold the rest to friends after repacking it. (Paras 13–15)

The court noted that this testimony was materially consistent with his recorded statements, except for two later statements in which he claimed Sherryl was the collector. Those two statements were expressly recanted by Ramendra and were treated by both sides as untrue. The excerpt does not include the court’s final assessment of the credibility of Ramendra’s defence. (Paras 16–17)

What Did the Court Decide on the Amendment Application?

The court held that no prejudice would be occasioned by the amendment and the framing of the additional charges. It reasoned that the new charges were substantially similar to the original charge, the Defence had the chance to respond, and no fresh evidence was required. The court therefore exercised its power under s 128(1) of the CPC to alter the existing charge and frame the two additional charges. (Para 22)

That ruling mattered because it allowed the case to proceed on a more granular charging structure reflecting the evidence about how the five “books” were to be divided between personal retention and delivery. The amendment aligned the charges with the evidence already before the court. (Paras 20–22)

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case is significant for its application of the CPC amendment power in a drug trial after the defence had closed. The court treated the absence of prejudice as the decisive consideration and accepted that charges may be restructured to reflect the evidence, provided the accused is not deprived of a fair opportunity to answer them. That approach is practically important in drug cases where the evidence may support different counts for different portions of the seized drugs. (Para 22)

The judgment is also useful for its concise restatement of the elements of trafficking and possession under the MDA, including the concept of “knowing possession”. Those propositions are central in controlled-drug prosecutions and explain why the accused’s awareness of the contents of the backpack was legally critical. (Paras 24–26)

Finally, the case illustrates how an accused’s own statements can shape the prosecution theory and the framing of charges. The court recorded that Ramendra’s admissions were materially consistent with his oral evidence, and that the parties agreed to disregard later inconsistent statements. That procedural and evidential posture is often decisive in drug cases. (Paras 16–17, 27–28)

Cases Referred To

Legislation Referenced

• Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) — ss 5(1)(a), 5(2), 8(a), 33(1); First Schedule (Paras 1, 19, 24–26)
• Criminal Procedure Code — s 22; s 128(1) (Paras 17, 19, 22) [CDN] [SSO]

Source Documents

• Original Judgment (PDF) — Singapore Law Watch
• Archived Copy (PDF) — Litt Law CDN

This article analyses [2021] SGHC 242 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.