IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Revision Application under Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Case No: Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CPA/0078/23 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Colombo Halgama Arachchilage Piyushani Iresha Case No. HC 3937/2022 ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Halgama Arachchilage Piyushani Iresha ACCUSED-PETITIONER Vs.

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

RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Sandeepani Wijesooriya with Randeepa Wijesooriya for the Petitioner : Sudharshana De Silva, S.D.S.G for the Respondent Argued on : 09-01-2024 Decided on : 19-03-2024 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an application by the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) seeking to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction granted to this Court by Article 138 of The Constitution.

After hearing the learned Counsel who supported this application for notice, and having satisfied as to the relevant circumstances and the law in that regard, this Court decided to issue notice on the complainant-respondent, namely, the Hon. Attorney General. Accordingly, the complainant-respondent was allowed to file objections in this regard, and the petitioner was also allowed to file counter objections.

At the hearing of this application, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the application and the submissions of the learned Senior Deputy Solicitor General (SDSG) on behalf of the Hon. Attorney General.

This is a matter where the petitioner has been indicted before the High Court of Colombo in Case Number HC/3937/2022 for knowingly engaging in the offence of money laundering through the use of her bank account for a sum of Rs. 20,700,200/- between the period of 18-03-2010 and 24-11-2010, and thereby committing an offence punishable in terms of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 5 of 2006 as amended by Amendment Act No.40 of

2011.

After the indictment was served on the petitioner, the learned Counsel who represented the petitioner before the High Court has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the action against the petitioner, urging the Court to reject the indictment and discharge the petitioner from the proceedings. The essence of the objection had been that the charge was based on the amendment brought to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by Amendment Act No. 40 of 2011, where any other person than an accused had also been brought under the purview of section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 5 of 2006.

It had been the position of the learned Counsel that the relevant amendment has not provided for any retrospective effect, and since the charges relating to a period before the Amendment Act came into effect, the charges against the petitioner cannot be maintained. It had been contended further that the petitioner has been charged for an offence that was not in existence during the time relevant for the charge.

After hearing the oral submissions in this connection, the learned High Court Judge has allowed the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the prosecuting State Counsel to file written submissions, and has pronounced his order on 24-05-2023 overruling the objection taken and fixing the matter for the pre-trial conference.

It is against this order the petitioner has sought to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court.

It is trite law that the remedy of revision, which is an extraordinary discretionary remedy can only be granted under exceptional circumstances.

In the case of Hotel Galaxy (Pvt) Ltd Vs. Mercantile Hotels managements Limited (1987) 1 SLR 5, it was held:

“It is settled law that the exercise of revisionary powers of the appellate Court is confined to cases in which exceptional circumstances exist warranting it