IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal from the High Court in terms of section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Complainant CA/HCC/261/2014 VS High Court of Galle Walakada Gamage Priyantha Case No: HC/3818/2013 Accused And now between Walakada Gamage Priyantha Accused– Appellants VS The Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Complainant -Respondent BEFORE : N. Bandula Karunarathna, J.

: R. Gurusinghe, J.

COUNSEL : M.P. Ganeshwaran with H.D.H.Seneviratne for the Accused-Appellant Chethiya Gunasekera PC ASG for the Respondent ARGUED ON : 30/11/2022 DECIDED ON : 19/01/2023 R. Gurusinghe, J.

The accused-appellant (the appellant) was indicted in the High Court of Galle for having being in possession and trafficking 3.38 grams of heroin, offences punishable under Section 54 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, as amended by Act No. 13 of 1984.

After trial, the appellant was convicted of both counts and sentenced to twenty years of Rigorous Imprisonment for each count.

Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal to this court.

The Attorney General has also preferred an appeal against the sentence on the basis that the learned High Court Judge has not imposed the prescribed mandatory sentence for that offence.

The grounds of appeal set out by the accused-appellant are as follows:

1. The chain of custody has not been established by the prosecution.

2. The difference in the weight in respect of the production is not considered.

3. The Learned High Court Judge has misdirected, not considering the above discrepancies.

4. Prosecution has failed to produce evidence to substantiate the first offence, in other words, trafficking.

5. Improbability of certain aspects of the prosecution version.

The prosecution case is briefly as follows:

PW1 was working at the Police Narcotic Bureau Matara branch, located at Dickwella. He received information from a private informant, and then he arranged a raid. A police team of four police officers left to Thiranagama at 2.00 p.m. on 27.8.2011. At Thiranagama, PW1 met the informant around 4.00 p.m. The informant had come in a three-wheeler driven by himself. The police team then went to Gonapinuwala in the three-wheeler which was driven by the informant. They stopped at Gonapinuwala junction and waited there for the accused. PW1 informed the other police officers that a person coming from the Baddegama area was carrying heroin with him. The accused came out from a shop and the informant showed the accused to the police. Then they saw that the accused got into a bus bound for Hikkaduwa. The informant thereafter got down from the three-wheeler, and let a police officer to drive the three-wheeler. They followed the bus until the appellant got down at Patana area in Hikkaduwa. PW1 then held the appellant and three other officers checked his pockets. They found a parcel of heroin in his pocket. The appellant was arrested, and the police then went to the appellant’s house in Baddegana.

They searched the house but did not find any illegal substances there. Then they came to the police station at Hikkaduwa, where they properly sealed the heroin and kept it in a locker allocated to PW1. The following day the productions were handed over to PW8 Inspector of Police, Rajakaruna and PW8 then handed over the productions to the Government Analyst.

The first ground of appeal is that the chain of custody has not been proved by the prosecution. It involves only PW1 and PW8. PW1 handed over the productions on the following day to PW8. PW8 handed over the same to the Government Analyst. There was no break in the chain of custody of the productions. Therefore, the first ground of appeal has no merit.

The second ground of appeal is that there is a difference in the weight of the heroin. As per the police, the weight of the heroin is 13 gram