JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The Accused-Respondent (Hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) was indicted in the High Court of Colombo for solicitation and acceptance of money as a gratification at various occasions from a person called Nagalingam Thangamma the virtual complainant, to perform his duty which is an offence punishable under Section 19(b) 19 (c) of the Bribery Act No. 11 of 1954 as amended.

According to the Complainant-Petitioner (Hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) the offences with which the Respondent was charged were framed sequel to a Criminal Investigation conducted by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (Hereinafter referred to as CIABOC. The Information which prompted an investigation was received on 03.04.2018 and the Commission approved an Authorized Investigation Officer to conduct a criminal investigation against the Respondent.

The Investigation Officer having satisfied the statement recorded from the complainant, conducted a raid on 05.04.2018 and arrested the Respondent while he was accepting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. Upon consideration of the investigation notes pertains to this raid, the Petitioner had been directed on 25.02.2021 to institute criminal proceedings against the Respondent in the High Court, in terms of Section 11 of the CIABOC Act. The indictment styled HCB

95/2021 in the High Court of Colombo contained 12 charges.

As the Counsel for the defence informed Court that they were going to take a preliminary objection, the Learned High Court Judge fixed the matter to be called on 10.03.2022. The indictment was not served on the Respondent on 10.03.2022, the Learned High Court Judge directed the defence Counsel to file their preliminary objection in writing. Hence, the matter fixed to be called on 03.06.2022.

The defence, placed their preliminary objection on the premise that, the all Commissioners of the CIABOC had not given directive to the Director General to proceed with the criminal investigation which caused the institution of criminal proceedings in this matter.

The defence, having referred to Anoma Polwatta v The Commission to Investigate Allegation of Bribery and Corruption SC/Writ Application No. 01/2011 contended that the indictment premised upon the said investigation is void in abinitio and urged the learned trial judge to dismiss the indictment.

In reply to the preliminary objection raised, the Petitioner submitted to Court that there is no single provision in the Bribery Act or CIABOC Act or any judicial pronouncement which made it mandatory for all three commissioners to give a directive to commence a criminal investigation. Upholding the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, the Learned High Court had dismissed the indictment discharging the Respondent.

The Petitioner had submitted following grounds and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

i. The order dated 21.10.2022 is contrary to law.

ii. The said order is infested with illegality since learned High Court Judge has entailed sanctioning of criminal investigation by all three commissioners on a prerequisite to the institution of Criminal proceedings in the High Court which is not known to the Law.

iii. The learned Trial Judge erred in law by failing to consider that in terms of Section 2(8) of the CIABOC Act No. 19 of 1994, the members of the Commission may exercise the powers conferred on the Commission either sitting together or separately and where a member of the Commission exercises any such power sitting separately, his acts shall be deemed to be the act of the Commission.

iv. The learned Trail Judge erred in law in failing to consider that the decided case of Anoma Polwatte Vs. Jayawickrama and others SC/Writ/1/2011 was a judgment of the Supreme Court pursuant to a writ application challenging the institution of an action under Section 78 (1) of the Bribery Act No. 11 of 1954 and that the Respondent was not entitled to challenge a decision of the