IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA.

In the matter of a Revisionary Application under Article 138 of the Constitution.

Parana Manage Sidath Bidula Thotupolagewatte, Boralukatiya, Kahanda Andulugaha.

Suspect Vs.

Court of Appeal Revisionary Officer – in – Charge, Application No: CA / PHC/ APN /

Police Station, 121 / 20 Tangalle.

High Court of Tengalle Case No:

Plaintiff HC 81 /2017 AND BETWEEN Parana Manage Sidath Bidula Thotupolagewatte, Boralukatiya, Kahanda Andulugaha.

Accused Vs.

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Plaintiff AND NOW BETWEEN Paranmanage Susiri Lakshan Thotupolgewatte, Boralukatiya, Kahanda Andulugaha. Substituted Petitioner Vs.

Parana Manage Sidath Bidula Thotupolagewatte, Boralukatiya, Kahanda Andulugaha.

Convited 1^st Respondent The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

2^nd Respondent Before: Menaka Wijesundera J.

Neil Iddawala J.

Counsel: Shirol D. lalanniarachchi for the Petitioner.

Maheshika Silva, SSC for the State.

Argued on: 22.03.2022 Decided on: 24.05.2022 MENAKA WIJESUNDERA J.

The instant application has been filed to set aside the sentence pronounced on the accused namely Parana Manage Sidath Bidula dated

02.04.2019.

The accused in this matter has been indicted under Section 364 and 365 of the Penal Code and the accused had pleaded guilty to the two charges. The accused had been sentenced to for the first charge five years imprisonment and with a fine. Second charge fifteen years imprisonment, fine and compensation to the victim. The two sentences to operate consecutively.

The accused had not filed this petition; instead, it is the substituted petitioner who has filed the application of revision. The prayer to the petition does not content the conviction, but only the sentence. The counsel appearing for the respondents have taken up preliminary objections as follows.

1) The delay in filing the petition

2) The substituted petitioner has no locus standi to file the petitioner and even he has the right he has not explained as to how he was aggrieved

3) The accused has the right of appeal, but he has not exercised the same The impugned sentencing of the accused had taken place on 02.04.2019 and the instant application for the revision has been filed on 12.09.2020 which is after one year and five months.

It is a well-founded principle that if a revision application is filled, the party filling the same must do so without delay. In the case of Ellangakoon v OIC Eppawala Police Station and another (2007) 1 SLR 398, it has been held that “the impugned order is ordered 16/03/2006 while the petition has been filled on 24/07/2006, entailing an unexplained delay of four months and eight days/ in the absence of explanation to the contrary this delay be considered unreasonable”.

In a case decided by this bench, CA/PHC/APN/21/2021 this court has decided that “delay is considered to be a fatal error if it’s not explained to the satisfaction of Court, and it has been held by this bench in the case of CA/PHC/APN/78/2021. This Court notes that counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to why the delay in filing the instant application.

The counsel for the respondents raised the objection that the substituted petitioner does not have the locus standi to file the instant application.

As per Merriam-Webster (since 1828) Dictionary, locus standi is defined as a right to appear in a court or before anybody on a given question: a right to be heard. Furthermore Sathe, Public Participation and Judicial Process elaborated the definition of the locus standi as, “Locus Stand rule is based on good policy. The principle is that court time as well as energy should not be wasted on hypothetical or abstract questions or on a professional trial or a busy institution.” Moreover, United Nations and the Rule of Law: Access to Justice declares that “Access to justice is a principle of the rule of law. Without access to justice, people will not be able to raise their voices and exercise their rights. Ther