2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 241
COURT OF APPEAL
Hon.P. Kumararatnam J.
Chaminda Srimal Hemantha – Appellant
Versus
The Hon. Attorney General and others. – Respondent
CA/PHC 0147/19
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal made in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution read with Article 154P (3) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
Court of Appeal The Officer-in-Charge Application No: Special Investigation Branch, CA (PHC) 0147/2019 Avissawella.
COMPLAINANT High Court of Kegalle Vs.
No. 5527/REV 1. Dilip Kumara
183/N, Kandy Road, MC Ruwanwella Mahara, Kadawatha, No. B 79014 SUSPECT
2. Ranaweera Arachchige Don Priyantha Chandrapala No.157/7, Pasal Mawatha, Halpita, Polgasovita.
VIRTUAL-COMPLAINANT
3. A and R. Manufacturing (PVT) LTD Gomaduwa Yatiyantota.
FIRST PARTY CLAIMANT
4. Chaminda Srimal Hemantha
416, Enderamulla Wattala.
SECOND PARTY CLAIMANT AND Chaminda Srimal Hemantha
416, Enderamulla Wattala.
SECOND PARTY CLAIMANT-
PETITIONER Vs.
1. A and R Manufacturing PVT Ltd Gomaduwa, Yatiyantota.
FIRST PARTY CLAIMANT-
RESPONDENT
2. The Officer-in-Charge Special Investigation Branch, Avissawella.
COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT
3. Dilip Kumara
183/N, Kandy Road, Mahara, Kadawatha, SUSPECT-RESPONDENT
4. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo-12.
RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Chaminda Srimal Hemantha
416, Enderamulla Wattala.
SECOND PARTY CLAIMANT-
PETITIONER-APPELLANT Vs.
1. A and R Manufacturing PVT Ltd Gomaduwa, Yatiyantota.
FIRST PARTY CLAIMANT-
RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT
2. The Officer-in-Charge Special Investigation Branch, Avissawella.
COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-
RESPONDENT
3. Dilip Kumara
183/N.Kandy Road,Mahara, Kadawatha, SUSPECT-RESPONDENT-
RESPONDENT
4. The Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo-12.
RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT BEFORE : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.
P. Kumararatnam, J.
COUNSEL : J.P.Gamage with Chamara Fernando, Sachini Ranaweera and Hansika Ranaweera for the Appellant.
Pradeep Perera with Panchali Pathirana for the 1st Party Claimant-
Respondent-Respondent.
Jehan Gunasekera, SC for the 2nd Complainant Respondent and 4th Respondent-Respondent.
SUPPORTED ON : 12/12/2023. DECIDED ON : 02/05/2024.
*****************************
JUDGMENT
P. Kumararatnam, J.
The 2nd Party Claimant-Petitioner-Appellant (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Petitioner) is a businessman engaged in import and sale vehicles and spare parts, and the sole owner of the individual business named ‘Chaminda Enterprises’ with the registration No. WR 37129. The Appellant had imported a freezer truck bearing chassis No. NPR 85- 7015540.The Appellant used to sell and effect repairs if any, of his vehicles through ‘Kumar Car Sales’ owned by the Suspect-Respondent-
Respondent (Hereinafter referred to as the Suspect).
The Appellant brought the freezer truck mentioned above to Suspect’ s car sale but retained all original documents with him. The Suspect had agreed to sell the vehicle in dispute to 1st Party Claimant-Respondent- Respondent (Hereinafter referred to as the 1st Party Claimant) for Rs.4,950,000/-. According to the Appellant this intended transaction was not intimated to him by the Suspect. The virtual complainant who was a director of the 1st Party Claimant had paid the consideration in two cheques and taken the possession of the vehicle. The Suspect had under took to register the vehicle in the name of Virtual Complainant.
After about three months, the Suspect had removed the freezer truck from Virtual Complainant claiming that it was necessary to take the vehicle for inspection of the Registrar of Motor Vehicle to register it.
Thereafter, the Suspect had informed the Appellant that the vehicle was available at ‘Kumar Car Sales’, the Appellant removed the vehicle and brought to into another garage for remaining repairs.
On 08.01.2019, the Virtual Complainant had lodged a complaint at the Awissavella Police Station that the Suspect had cheated him by taking money but not provided the vehicle as contracted. On the same day, the Complainant-Respondent-Respondent (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) has seized the vehicle from the garage where the App