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

Court of Appeal Case No: Officer-in-Charge, CA (PHC) APN 0081/21 Police Station, Chilaw.

High Court of Chilaw COMPLAINANT Case No: HCA 11/17 & HCR 24/17 Vs.

Chilaw Magistrate’s Court Rev. Yogaraj Steven, Case No: 90905 No. 11, Wijaya Mawatha, Chilaw.

RESPONDENT AND NOW Rev. Yogaraj Steven No. 11, Wijaya Mawatha, Chilaw.

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT Vs.

1. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Chilaw.

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT

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

RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Wasala Herat Mudiyanselage Manel Kapukotuwa No. 6A, Wijaya Mawatha, Chilaw.

VIRTUAL COMPLAINANT-

PETITIONER Vs.

1. Rev. Yogaraj Steven No. 11, Wijaya Mawatha, Chilaw.

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-

RESPONDENT

2. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Chilaw.

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-

RESPONDENT

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

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Tenney Fernando with Terin Marasinghe for the Petitioner.

: Ranjan Mendis for the Respondent-Appellant-

Respondent.

: Lishan Ratnayake, S.C. for the Respondents.

Argued on : 20-05-2024 Decided on : 01-08-2024 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an application by the virtual-complainant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) invoking the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court granted to this Court in terms of Article 138 of The Constitution.

When this matter was supported for notice, after having considered the relevant facts, circumstances and the law, this Court decided to issue notice on the respondent-respondents mentioned in the petition. Accordingly, the respondents were allowed to file their respective objections if any, 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 and also heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent-appellant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). This Court also had the advantage of listening to the views expressed by the learned State Counsel who represented the complainant-

respondent-respondent and the Hon. Attorney General.

The Facts:-

This is a matter that emanates from an order pronounced by the learned Magistrate of Chilaw in relation to an application filed before him by the Officer- in-Charge of Chilaw police station in terms of section 98(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, which was an application seeking a conditional order for a removal of a nuisance.

The nuisance complained had been to prevent noise pollution caused in the neighbourhood where the respondent was conducting Church services using equipment that releases loud noises to the environment.

After having considered the report filed by the police and taking evidence in relation to the complaint, the learned Magistrate of Chilaw has decided to issue a conditional order in that regard on 7th July 2017.

In his conditional order, the learned Magistrate has prevented the respondent from using loudspeakers in conducting religious prayers at the Church maintained by him.

When this conditional order was served upon the respondent, it has been informed to the Court on 12-09-2017 by his Counsel that he would not be calling any evidence and will only make oral submissions.

Accordingly, the learned Counsel who represented the respondent has made oral submissions. After the conclusion of the said submissions, the learned Magistrate has provided an opportunity for both sides to submit written submissions as well, in this regard.

The learned Magistrate has pronounced his order on 17-10-2017, and has decided to make the previous conditional order permanent in terms of section

101(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.

Being dissatisfied of the above-men