IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Revision in terms of Articles 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Case No. Hon. Attorney General, CA (PHC) APN/0062/2017 Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

High Court Colombo COMPLAINANT Case No. 5494/2011 Vs.

and 5495/2011.

Kandiah Yoganathan, No. 11/3, Boyd Place, Colombo 03.

ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Kandiah Yoganathan, No. 11/3, Boyd Place, Colombo 03.

ACCUSED-PETITIONER Vs.

Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Dr. Romesh de Silva, P.C. with Niran Anketell and V.

K. Niles instructed by Sanath Wijewardane for the Accused-Petitioner : Suharshi Herath, D.S.G. for the Respondent Argued on : 26-09-2023 Decided on : 02-02-2024 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This an application by the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) who is the accused in the High Court of Colombo Case No. 5494/2011, invoking the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court granted in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution.

The petitioner is seeking to challenge the order dated 20-03-2017 of the learned High Court Judge of Colombo, where the statement of a confessional nature alleged to have been made by the petitioner in terms of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979, as amended, while in police detention at the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID), was allowed to be admitted as evidence.

When this matter was supported for a stay order and for notice, after having considered the petition, the affidavit and other supporting documents, this Court issued notice and also granted interim relief by suspending further proceedings before the High Court, initially, for a period of 14 days, which was extended from time to time. On 01-02-2019, the stay order was extended until the final determination of the application.

At the hearing of the application, this Court heard the submissions of the learned President’s Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, as well as that of the learned Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) on behalf of the respondent, the Hon. Attorney General.

This is an action where the petitioner was indicted before the High Court of Colombo for committing an offence in terms of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979 as amended by Amendment Act No.10 of 1982 and 22 of 1988 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the PTA) by failing to inform the law enforcement authorities that a person called Kadiragamanadan Mahindan alias Vengayan, who was a member of the prohibited organization named LTTE, is engaged in getting the communication equipment belonging to the said organization released, despite the fact that it was well within his knowledge, and thereby committing an offence violating section 5(a) of the PTA, punishable in terms of the section 5 of the said Act.

The alleged offence is said to have been committed between the period of 01-05-

2004 and 30-04-2005.

Ironically, a second indictment bearing No. 5495/2011 has also been filed against the petitioner based on the same transaction for aiding the mentioned person to get the mentioned goods released, an offence punishable in terms of section 2(2)(11) of the PTA, for which I am unable to understand the rationale behind filing two separate indictments on the same matter.

It appears that the parties have consented before the trial Court for the taking up of Case No. 5494/2011 for trial first.

At the commencement of the trial, the indictment has been read over to the petitioner in Tamil language since the petitioner has informed the Court that he is not conversant in the Sinhala language and the petitioner has pleaded not guilty. However, when the first prosecution witness was called to give evidence, it has been agreed that he needs no interpretation of the evidence, which indicates t