IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Article 154P (6) of the Constitution read with Rule 2 (1) (a) of the Court of Appeal (Procedure for appeals from High Courts established by Article 154P of the Constitution) Rules 1988.

CA(PHC) 143/2017 Officer-in-Charge, Police station, Eheliyagoda.

PHC - Awissawella COMPLAINANT Rev - 15/20 15 Vs.

MC – Awissawella

80769 Ranbandarage Hasitha Sulochana Priyarathne, No. 264/A/3, Wijenayake Mawatha, Eheliyagoda.

CLAIMANT AND Ranbandarage Hasitha Sulochana Priyarathne, No. 264/A/3, Wijenayake Mawatha, Eheliyagoda.

CLAIMANT-PETITIONER Vs.

1. Officer-in-Charge, Police station, Eheliyagoda.

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT

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

RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Ranbandarage Hasitha Sulochana Priyarathne, No. 264/A/3, Wijenayake Mawatha, Eheliyagoda.

CLAIMANT-PETITIONER-

APPELLANT Vs.

1. Officer-in-Charge, Police station, Eheliyagoda.

COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT-

RESPONDENT

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

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

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Ranjan Mendis with Shyamantha Bandara and Ravinda for the Petitioner : Jayalakshi De Silva, S.C. for the Respondent Argued on : 08-06-2023 Written Submissions : 02-06-2023 (By the Respondent)

: 14-03-2022 (By the Petitioner)

Decided on : 02-08-2023 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

The claimant-petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 24^th August 2017, where the revision application filed by him before the High Court of the Western Province holden in Awissawella was dismissed by the learned High Court Judge of Awissawella by the impugned order.

The appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No- SG LD 0856. The said vehicle had been detained by the officers of Eheliyagoda police for allegedly transporting Jak and Nadun timber without a valid permit, which is an offence punishable in terms of the Forest Ordinance.

Accordingly, the driver of the vehicle had been charged before the Magistrate Court of Awissawella and he had pleaded guilty to the charge on 25-02-2015. He had been fined Rs. 20000/- with a default sentence of two months simple imprisonment, and the illegally transported timber had been confiscated.

The learned Magistrate of Awissawella, apparently, acting in terms of section 40 of the Forest Ordinance as amended by Forest (Amendment) Act No-65 of 2009, had ordered the owner of the vehicle to show cause as to why the vehicle involved in the offence should not be confiscated.

At the ensuring inquiry, the appellant who is the registered owner of the vehicle has given evidence claiming the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle, who was the accused in the case, has also given evidence on behalf of the registered owner.

The appellant in his evidence has taken up the position that he used the vehicle for the purposes of his timber mill, but used to give the vehicle on hire on other occasions. He has employed the accused as his driver and had given specific instructions to him not to engage in illegal activities like transporting timber or sand without a valid permit. It had been his evidence that he used to be vigilant as to the activities of the driver, but on the day in question, he was informed that the driver had been arrested for transporting timber without a permit. He had urged for the release of the vehicle on the basis that he took all the necessary precautions to prevent the offence and he had no knowledge of the offence been committed.

The driver of the vehicle in his evidence has stated that he had instructions form the owner of the vehicle not to engage in illegal activities like transporting of sand and it was he who accepted hires from others and earn money on behalf of the owner. He has explained the arrangement they had to share the earnings. He has claimed that on the day i