IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section 331(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 read with Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal Case No.

HCC/0043/18 Complainant High Court of Puttalam Case No. HC/10/2014 Vs.

1. Ramalan Mohamed Hafeel.

2. Mohamed Fahruk Yusuf Aruf Lebbe.

Accused AND NOW BETWEEN Ramalan Mohamed Hafeel.

1st Accused-Appellant Vs.

1. Director, Criminal Investigation Department, Sri Lanka Police, Colombo.

2. Hon. Attorney – General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Respondent BEFORE : MENAKA WIJESUNDERA, J WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J COUNSEL : Amila palliyage with Sandeepani Wijesooriya, Savani Udugampola, Lakitha Wakishta Arachchi and Subaj De Silva for the 1st Accused-Appellant.

Jayalakshi De Silva, SSC for the Respondents.

ARGUED ON : 15.07.2024 DECIDED ON : 07.08.2024 WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J.

Two accused in this case were indicted under Section 22(3) read with Section 22(1) of the Firearms Ordinance as amended by Act No. 22 of 1996 for illegally possessing an automatic rifle and under Section 27(1) (b) of the Explosives Act as amended by Act No. 18 of 2005 for illegally possessing 30 live ammunitions by violating Section 9(2).

After trial, the 1st accused was convicted for both counts and the 2nd accused was acquitted of both counts by the Judgment dated 28.05.2018 of the learned High Court Judge of Puttalam. Life imprisonment was imposed against the 1^st accused for the first count and a fine of Rs. 2500/- which carries a default sentence of simple imprisonment of three months were imposed on the 2^nd count. The 1^st accused preferred this appeal against the said Judgment.

Prior to the hearing of the appeal, written submissions were filed on behalf of both parties. However, apart from mentioning four grounds of appeal, no facts or arguments relating to those grounds were mentioned in the written submissions of the appellant. In consequence, in the written submissions of the respondents also nothing has been mentioned apart from the two charges, four grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant and the sentences imposed by the learned Judge. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior State Counsel (SSC) for the respondents made oral submissions.

The facts of the case, according to the prosecution, may be briefly summarized as follows:

PW-1, was the Officer in Charge of the Traffic Division of the Police Station of Anamaduwa at the time of the incident. On the day in question, around 4.15 p.m., he had gone on petrol duties with Police Constable Rathnayaka. They had toured about 9 kilometers in the direction of Puttlam from Anamaduwa and met Police Constable Sumith (PW-5) and Police Constable Samantha (PW-2) in Kottukatchchiya area. The four Police Officers had put up road barriers near Kottukatchchiya temple to search vehicles that commit motor traffic offences. While they were on duty, a Dolphin model van bearing No. 253-4691 was moving fast from Puttlam side and O.I.C. Ranbanda (PW-1) has signaled to stop the van. The van stopped after moving little further passing the police officers. Then, PW-1 had gone near the van and asked the driver his driving license. At this instance, the diver had submitted only a photo copy of the driving license and accordingly PW-1 had summoned the other three police officers to the place where the van was stopped. The driver of the van was seen to be in a frightened state. PW-1 has got on to the driving seat and searched the vehicle. PW-1 had observed that the carpet under the driving seat was protruded and upon search, he observed a gun and two magazines below the carpet. According to PW-1 one of the magazines was loaded with 30 live ammunitions while the other one was not loaded. Accordingly, the officers arrested the driver of the va