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/0003/20 Complainant High Court of Puttalam Case No. HC/100/2004 Vs.

Don Sydney Manikka Hettiarachchi.

Accused AND NOW BETWEEN Don Sydney Manikka Hettiarachchi.

Accused-Appellant Vs.

Hon. Attorney – General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Complainant- Respondent BEFORE : MENAKA WIJESUNDERA, J WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J COUNSEL : U.R. De Silva, PC with Savithri Fernando, Thilini Athapaththu for the Accused-Appellant.

Harippriya Jayasundera, ASG for the Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 09.09.2024 DECIDED ON : 08.10.2024 WICKUM A. KALUARACHCHI, J.

The accused-appellant was indicted in the High Court of Puttalam on 20 counts. The first count is committing Criminal Misappropriation of sum of Rs. 2,685,550/- belonging to the Kalpitiya Branch of the People’s Bank during the period of 31st of January 2001 to 06th September 2001, an offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the Offences against Public Property Act No. 12 of 1982 as amended by Act No.76 of 1988. Further, the appellant was indicted on the 2nd to 20th counts for dishonestly or fraudulently inducing bank officers to pay money to certain individuals who acted on behalf of the appellant and pawned fake jewellery items, offences punishable under Section 5(1) of the same Act. As the prosecution witness No. 7 and 12 were abroad at the time of the trial, the 2nd to 20th counts were withdrawn by the prosecution and the trial proceeded against the accused-appellant on the first count only. After trial, the learned High Court Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the first count and imposed a sentence of 10 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.8,056,650.00/- which carries a default sentence of 10 years simple imprisonment. This appeal is preferred against the said conviction and the sentence.

Prior to the hearing, written submissions had been filed on behalf of both parties. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned President’s Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent made oral submissions. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted further written submissions with a schedule outlining how the amount of Rs. 2,685,550/- contained in the first charge was determined.

Briefly, the prosecution case is as follows:

The accused-appellant served as the Officer in Charge of the Pawning Division in the People’s Bank, Kalpitiya Branch during the period of 31st of January 2001 to 06th September 2001. PW-1, the Manager of the People’s Bank, Kalpitiya Branch had initiated a preliminary investigation on 12.09.2021 after being informed by the Regional Office to conduct an audit of the bank's pawn stock. This was in response to a suspected fraud that was discovered in the People's Bank, Negombo Branch during the appellant's tenure in the Pawning Division of the said bank. According to the prosecution, the accused-appellant had repeatedly pawned 2 fake items of jewellery; a gold-plated chain and a bracelet (P-12 and P-13) to the bank through intermediaries and obtained money and thereby committing criminal misappropriation of sum of Rs. 2,685,550/-money belonging to the People’s Bank.

In the written submissions tendered on behalf of the Accused-Appellant following grounds of appeal have been urged.

i. The Judgement of the learned High Court Judge is not a Judgment in terms of Section 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.

ii. The learned High Court Judge has misconceived in law and facts as he has failed to appreciate the evidence in the light of the principles applicable for evaluation of circumstantial evidence.

iii. The learned Trial Judge has improperly rejected the defence case.

However, at the heari