IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRETIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of section 331 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code No- 15 of 1979, read with Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal No: Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CA/HCC/0021/2019 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Negombo Case No:

HC/114/2005 Siddhadhura Michel Mendis ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Siddhadhura Michel Mendis ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 RESPONDENT Before : K Priyantha Fernando, J.

: Sampath B Abayakoon, J.

Counsel : Tirantha Walaliyadde, P.C. with Hirandi Cooray and Sarith Pathirana for Accused-Appellant : A, Navavi D.S.G. for the Respondent Argued on : 01-04-2021(By way of written Submissions)

Written Submissions : 30-06-2020 (By the Accused-Appellant)

: 07-07-2020 (By the Respondent)

Decided on : 30-04-2021 Sampath B Abayakoon, J.

This is an appeal by the Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) on being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence of him by the learned High Court Judge of Negombo.

The appellant was indicted before the High Court of Negombo for two counts in terms of section 54A(d) and 54A(b) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance for having in his possession 2.4 grams of Heroin, which is a prohibited substance under the provisions of the Ordinance and at the same time trafficking the same.

After trial, the learned High Court Judge of Negombo by his judgment dated 29-01-2019 found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment on both counts.

At the hearing of the appeal, the learned President’s Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Respondent Attorney General, invited the Court to pronounce the judgment based on the written submissions by the parties.

In his written submissions, the learned President’s Counsel for the appellant has urged the following four grounds of appeal for the consideration of the Court.

(a) Break in the chain of productions being sent to the Government Analyst (b) Discrepancy in the identity of the productions.

(c) Dock statement was rejected based on unreasonable grounds.

(d) The trial Judge casted unnecessary burden on the accused.

Before considering the grounds of appeal in detail, I would now briefly summarize the facts relevant to the grounds of appeal as presented to the High Court by way of evidence.

This is an action instituted based on a raid conducted by the officers of the Excise Department upon an information received by Excise Guard 744 Ashoka (PW-07), from one of his personal informants about an illegal Heroin transaction, and conveyed to PW-02, namely Excise Sgt. Major Kandawattage Dayarathna Ranwala. The information received was of a person called Magulpokune Michel, who is dealing in Heroin he obtains from a house situated in Oliyamulla and that he travels to the said place early morning of every other day, and the informant will be in a position to point out the person. According to the evidence of PW-02, after receiving the information, the raiding party led by Excise Inspector Sunil (PW-01) had left for Oliyamulla area of Wattala in the early morning of 22-05-2002. After meeting the informant on their way, the raiding party along with the informant had travelled to the bus stand near the Oliyamulla area gravel road, and had waited there in anticipation of the arrival of the suspect. Later, the informant had pointed out a person who got down from a bus at 6.45 am as Michel. Since it was informed that he was on his way to obtain Heroin, the raiding party waited near the bus stand until his return which happened at 8.45 am. Upon revealing his identity, PW-02 questioned and searched the suspect to find three parcels wrapped in blue coloured shopping bags in his trouser pocket. On search of the bags, PW- 02 had discovered 120 small packets in total with a powder l