MOHD AKEBAL S/O GHULAM JILANI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGCA 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGCA 11 Court of Appeal 23 March 2023 CA/CM 11/2023 13 min read

4 cases cited

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

the appeal was dismissed after considering all the surrounding circumstances: see [12]–[16] of the Appeal Judgment.

Source: [2023] SGCA 11, Court of Appeal, decided 23 March 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	23 March 2023
Judge	Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Chin Jincheng, Chong Yong, Mark Jayaratnam

Source: [2023] SGCA 11, Court of Appeal, decided 23 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Permission for review

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Tay Yong Kwang Delivered

Counsel (4)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Chin Jincheng Counsel Respondent Chong Yong Counsel Respondent Mark Jayaratnam Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani Applicant

Case Significance

Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 11 was heard in the Court of Appeal by Tay Yong Kwang JCA on 23 March 2023, in Criminal Motion No 11 of 2023. The applicant brought an application under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 for permission to make a review application in respect of the court's earlier judgment in Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2020] 1 SLR 266. The applicant had been convicted of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on 27 February 2019, with his conviction appeal dismissed on 28 November 2019; the motion sought permission to review on the basis that he was wrongly identified.

[2023] SGCA 11 explained

MOHD AKEBAL S/O GHULAM JILANI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 11) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 23 March 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGCA 11 about?

MOHD AKEBAL S/O GHULAM JILANI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 11) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Permission for review”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGCA 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani, who had been convicted of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, applied to the Court of Appeal under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to make a review application in respect of an earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. He argued he had been wrongly identified and was the victim of a conspiracy. The court held that the application only raised material already canvassed in the earlier proceedings and disclosed no change in the law, and dismissed it summarily.

What did Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani apply for in [2023] SGCA 11?

In Criminal Motion No 11 of 2023, the applicant sought permission under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to make a review application in respect of the Court of Appeal's earlier judgment reported at [2020] 1 SLR 266, arguing he was wrongly identified.

What was Mohd Akebal convicted of before the review application in [2023] SGCA 11?

The applicant was convicted on one charge of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on 27 February 2019; his conviction appeal was dismissed on 28 November 2019.