IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of Writ of Certiorari in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Sandresh Ravindra Karunanayake No. 1291/6, Rajamalwatte Road, CA/WRIT/441/2021 Battaramulla.

.

Petitioner Vs.

1. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

2. The Registrar High Court-at-Bar in Case No.

HC(TAB) 2445/2021, The High Court, Colombo.

3. Justice K. T. Chitrasiri Retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Chairman, Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate into and report on the issuance of performance bonds, No. 92/20, Thalapathpitiya Road, Udahamulla, Nugegoda.

4. Kandasamy Velupillai Esq.

Retired Deputy Auditor General, Member of the Commission of Inquiry, Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate into and report on the issuance of performance bonds.

5. Secretary to the President Presidential Secretariat, Colombo 01. Respondents Before : Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.

Dhammika Ganepola J.

Counsel : Faiz Musthapha PC with Shavendra Fernando PC, Faisza Markar, Riad Ameen and Zaianab Markar for the Petitioner.

Priyantha Nawana PC, SASG with Lakmini Girihagama DSG and Udara Karunatilake SC for the 1st Respondent.

Argued on : 28.03.2022, 09.09.2022, 28.10.2022 and11.01.2023 Written Submissions: Petitioner -06.12.2022 and 17.02.2023

1st Respondent -01.12.2022 and 10.01.2023 Decided on : 28.02.2023 Sobhitha Rajakaruna J.

The Attorney General has indicted 11 accused and as a consequence, the relevant trial in the case bearing No. HC(TAB) 2445/2021 commenced before a High Court-at-Bar. The Petitioner is the 2^nd accused of the relevant indictment. The Petitioner seeks, inter alia, a writ of Certiorari quashing the decision made by the Attorney General-1^st Respondent to charge the Petitioner by way of the said indictment and/or information on the charges bearing Nos. 1, 3, 14, 15 & 16 in the said indictment dated 12.03.2021, marked ‘P10’, issued on the order of the said High Court-at-Bar.

The Petitioner complains that the 1^st Respondent has indicted the Petitioner and/or exhibited information against the Petitioner in the said High Court-at-Bar relying upon certain decisions contained in the report of a Commission of Inquiry when such Commission itself has not recommended such a course of action. The said Commission of Inquiry has been appointed to investigate and inquire into and report on the issuance of Treasury Bonds during the period of 01.02.2015 to 31.03.2016.

Commission of Inquiry The then President of the Republic of Sri Lanka in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act No. 17 of 1948, as amended (‘COI Act’) issued a warrant appointing a Commission of Inquiry (‘COI’) by virtue of Gazette Extraordinary No. 2003/41 dated 27.01.2017 to make recommendations with reference to the matter referred to in the Schedule thereto after an investigation or an inquiry.

The said Schedule;

1. The issuance of Treasury Bonds during the period of 1st February 2015 and 31st March 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “such treasury bonds”);

a. The decision making processes that preceded the issuance of such treasury bonds including the decisions relating to-

i. the sum of money to be raised by each such treasury bond issue;

ii. the rate of interest payable on such treasury bonds or the method of determination of the rate of interest payable;

iii. the dates on which interest on such treasury bonds shall be payable; iv. the rate at which, and the periods at the end of which, appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund and assets of Sri Lanka shall be made as a contribution to the sinking fund established for the purpose of redeeming such treasury bonds and the date from which such contributions shall commence;

v. the date of redemption of such treasury bonds.

b. The disposal of such treasury bonds by the Primary Dealers, Direct Participants or Dealer Direct Participants.

The