PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Yogesswaran C Manogaran & Anor
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Philip Jeyaretnam |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Fleet Street Law LLC, Gabriel Law Corporation, Kalidass Law Corporation, Ashvin Hariharan, J Jayaletchmi, Jaime Pang, Kalidass s/o Murugaiyan, Krishna Ramakrishna Sharma, Lim Woon Yee, Nandwani Manoj Prakash, Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek, Prakash Otharam |
Source: [2023] SGHC 170, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (13)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Yogesswaran C Manogaran and another [2023] SGHC 170 is a reserved judgment of Philip Jeyaretnam J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 19 June 2023 in Criminal Case No 57 of 2022. The first accused, Yogesswaran C Manogaran, is a 29-year-old Malaysian citizen who worked as a warehouse assistant, and the second accused, Teo Yiu Kin Tee, is a 75-year-old Stateless citizen who was unemployed at his arrest. Yogesswaran claimed trial to a charge of trafficking in diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), by delivering to Teo, on 14 January 2020 at about 6.00am in the vicinity of the junction of Bendemeer Road and Tripartite Way, two packets containing not less than 837g of granular or powdery substance analysed to contain not less than 24.81g of diamorphine.
[2023] SGHC 170 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Yogesswaran C Manogaran & Anor ([2023] SGHC 170) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 19 June 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, 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] SGHC 170 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Yogesswaran C Manogaran & Anor ([2023] SGHC 170) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory Offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 170 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] SGHC 170?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 170 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. 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
Yogesswaran C Manogaran and Teo Yiu Kin Tee claimed trial to charges of trafficking in diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, involving two packets containing not less than 24.81g of diamorphine delivered by Yogesswaran to Teo. Teo raised a defence that the drugs were entirely for his own consumption. The High Court rejected Teo's consumption defence and convicted both accused on their respective charges.
What was Public Prosecutor v Yogesswaran C Manogaran [2023] SGHC 170 about?
It was a reserved judgment of Philip Jeyaretnam J, delivered on 19 June 2023, in which Yogesswaran C Manogaran, a 29-year-old Malaysian warehouse assistant, claimed trial to trafficking diamorphine to Teo Yiu Kin Tee under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
What quantity of drugs was involved in [2023] SGHC 170?
The charge alleged that on 14 January 2020 near the junction of Bendemeer Road and Tripartite Way, Yogesswaran delivered to Teo Yiu Kin Tee two packets containing not less than 837g of granular or powdery substance, analysed to contain not less than 24.81g of diamorphine.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (11)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 170)