TANGARAJU S/O SUPPIAH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGCA 8 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 8 Court of Appeal 23 February 2023 CA/CM 25/2022 21 min read

7 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Outcome

Application dismissed

The application is therefore dismissed.

Source: [2023] SGCA 8, Court of Appeal, decided 23 February 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	23 February 2023
Judge	Steven Chong
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Application dismissed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Chong Kee En, John Lu

Source: [2023] SGCA 8, Court of Appeal, decided 23 February 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Leave for review

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Steven Chong Delivered

Counsel (3)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Chong Kee En Counsel Respondent John Lu Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Tangaraju s/o Suppiah Applicant

Case Significance

Decided 23 February 2023 by Steven Chong JCA in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Motion No 25 of 2022), this was an application by Tangaraju s/o Suppiah under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 for permission to review the Court of Appeal's earlier decision in CA/CCA 38/2018. The application was premised on the change in the law brought about by Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984, delivered 31 March 2020 after the decision in CCA 38 on 14 August 2019, concerning the Prosecution's duty to disclose a material witness's statement to the Defence. Tangaraju argued that the Prosecution had failed to disclose certain witnesses' statements and phone records; the court set out the requirements under s 394J for granting permission to review.

[2023] SGCA 8 explained

TANGARAJU S/O SUPPIAH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 8) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 23 February 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 8 about?

TANGARAJU S/O SUPPIAH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 8) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Leave 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 8 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.

How influential is [2023] SGCA 8?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGCA 8 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Tangaraju s/o Suppiah applied under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to review an earlier Court of Appeal decision concerning a Misuse of Drugs Act charge, relying on the change in the law in Nabill regarding the Prosecution's duty to disclose material witnesses' statements. He argued certain witness statements and phone records should have been disclosed. The court found the non-disclosure did not show a powerful probability that his conviction was wrong and dismissed the application.

What did Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 8 concern?

Tangaraju s/o Suppiah applied under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision in CCA 38/2018, relying on the disclosure duty stated in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984. Steven Chong JCA heard the motion.

What was the basis of Tangaraju's review application ([2023] SGCA 8)?

Tangaraju argued that, following Nabill (delivered 31 March 2020, after CCA 38 on 14 August 2019), the Prosecution should have disclosed certain witnesses' statements and phone records. Permission to review under s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code requires sufficient material disclosing a legitimate basis.