Pradeep Hettiarachchi, J

Judgment

1) The Accused-Petitioner-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) instituted the instant Revision Application seeking to have the order dated 08.04.2024 and 16.04.2024 of the learned Magistrate of Walasmulla in the case No 84237, and the order No HCRA 11/2024, dated 27.06.2024 of the learned Judge of the High Court of Tangalle to set aside or revised.

2) The Petitioner was charged before the Magistrate Court of Walasmulla for possessing 10 grams of Cannabis Sativa, which is an offence punishable under Section 78(5) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

3) When the charge was read out to the Petitioner on 08.04.2024, he tendered an unconditional plea of guilty to the charge at the very first instance. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate convicted him and imposed a fine of Rs 8000.00 with a default sentence of two-month imprisonment.

4) Subsequently, on 16.04.2024, an application was made on behalf of the Petitioner, seeking to convert the fine to a State cost as the Petitioner is an army corporal attached to Sri Lanka Army. But the learned Magistrate was not inclined to allow the application as she had already imposed the fine and the matter was concluded.

5) Thereafter, the Petitioner made an application in revision to the High Court of Tangalle seeking to have the learned Magistrate’s Order set aside and a State cost ordered in lieu of the fine, which application was also dismissed by the learned High Court Judge.

6) Being aggrieved by the said Order of the learned High Court Judge of Tangalle, the Petitioner has filed the instant revision application seeking to have the orders of the High Court of Tangalle and Magistrate court of Walasmulla revised.

7) The law relating to revision applications is well established. Revision being a discretionary remedy is available only on proving the existence of exceptional circumstances which shocks the conscience of the court.

8) In Wijesingha v. Tharmarathnam Sri Skantha Law Rep. Vol IV page 47 it was held:

‘Revision is a discretionary remedy and will not be available unless the application discloses exceptional circumstances which shock the conscience of the court.

9) As stated in Vanik Incorporation Ltd vs. Jayasekare [1997] 2 Sri LR 365, revisionary powers should be exercised where a miscarriage of justice has occurred due to fundamental rule of procedure being violated, but only when a strong case is made out amounting to a positive miscarriage of justice.

10) In Cadermenpulle vs. Ceylon Paper Sacks Ltd [2001] 3Sri LR 112, it was held that:

The existence of exceptional circumstances is a pre condition for the exercise of the powers of revision; and absence of exceptional circumstances in any given situation results in refusal of remedies.

11) In Dharmarathne & Another vs. Palm Paradise Cabanas Ltd. & Others [2003] 3 Sri LR 34, Gamini Amaratunga J. emphasised the importance of establishing the existence of exceptional circumstances as follows:

a. Existence of exceptional circumstances is the process by which the court selects the cases in respect of which the extraordinary method of rectification should be adopted. If such a selection process is not there revisionary jurisdiction of the court will become a gateway of every litigant to make a second appeal in the garb of revision application or to make an appeal in situations where the legislature has not given a right of appeal.

b. The practice of court is to insist on the existence of exceptional circumstances for the exercise of revisionary powers has taken deep root in our law and has got hardened into a rule which should not be lightly disturbed

12) It is with these legal principles in mind, I shall now consider the present application.

13) The exceptional circumstances urged by the Petitioner are as follows:

(a) The learned High Court Judge and the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the Judgments in cases bearing No. SC/SPL/LA 176/2016 dated 27.10.2016 and the Judgment bearing