IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an appeal in terms of Section

31(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.

Complainant CA. No. 281/2018 Vs.

High Court of Mohomad Nilam Mohomaad Sameer Colombo Accused Case No.107/2017 And NowBetween Mohomad Nilam Mohomaad Sameer Accused-Appellant Vs.

The Honourable Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Complainant-Respondent BEFORE : N. Bandula Karunarathna, J.

: R. Gurusinghe, J.

COUNSEL : Neranjan Jayasinghe for the Accused-Appellant.

Sanjeewa Dissanayake DSG., for the Respondent.

ARGUED ON : 15.03.2021 DECIDED ON : 31.03.2021 C.A. No. 281/2018 H.C. ColomboNo. 107/2017 R. Gurusinghe, J.

The Accused-Appellant was indicted in the High Court of Colombo for committing offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Offences against Public Property Act, No. 12/1982 as amended by the Act No. 28 of 1999 read with Section 403 of the Penal Code.

Charges levelled against the Appellant are as follows:

On or about 3^rd September 2005, the appellant had pawned four false bangles to the People’s Bank Liberty Plaza branch, pretending them as gold bangles under the No. 5063296 to Emil Pathmarajan and obtained Rs.40,000/-.

On or about 5^thof September 2005, the appellant had pawned five false bangles to the same bank pretending them as gold bangles under the No. 5063322 to Herath Hamige Punchi Bandara Seneviratne and obtained Rs. 49,000/-.

On or about 7^th of September 2005, the appellant had pawned four false bangles pretending them as gold bangles under the No. 5063394 to Herath Hamige Punchi Bandara Seneviratne and obtained Rs. 42,800/-.

After trial the appellant was convicted of all charges. He was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for each count and fined Rs. 120,000/- for the first count and Rs. 147,000/- for the second count and Rs. 128,000/- for the third count. In default imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each.

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

When this appeal was taken up for hearing learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the appellant was not proceeding to have the conviction set aside. The appellant now seeks only a reduction of the sentence.

Learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Respondent submitted the learned High Court Judge had set out reasons for the sentence imposed on the appellant. If the appellant was indicted separately for the charges, he would not be able to seek sentences to run concurrently. As a general rule, even sentenced on the same day the sentences for each offence should run consecutively.

Learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Respondent submitted the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Aswan Mohamed Riswan Vs. Attorney General C.A. Revision No. C.A. (PHC) APM 141/2013, H.C. Ratnapura H.C. No. 25/2010, Decided on 25^th March 2015 which stipulates guidelines regarding sentencing; where Justice K.T. Chithrasiri has discussed the objectives of sentencing and the factors that should be taken to consideration before a sentence is determined.

The following factors were enumerated in the aforesaid judgment.

(a) The maximum and the minimum (if any) penalty prescribed for the offence;

(b) The nature and gravity/seriousness of the particular offence.

(c) The offender’s culpability and degree of his/her responsibility for the offence;

(d) Mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed; (e) Evidence as to pre-arrangement for the commission of the offence;

(f) The impact of the offence on any victim and the injury, loss or damage caused as a result of the offence committed;

(g) Whether the offender pleaded guilty to the offence and if so, the stage in the proceedings at which the offender did so or the stage at which it was indicated;

(h) The conduct of the