IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for revision in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Plaintiff Vs.

Court of Appeal 1. Rajapakse Arachchige Thushara Revision Application No : Ranjan Rajapakse CA/ PHC/APN 78/2021

2. Ratnayake Mudiyanselage Ajith High Court of Kuliyapitiya Prasanna Case No : HC 176/2013

3. Horathal Pendige Chaminda Priyadarshana

4. Kandawala Pathirannalage Upul Sanjeewa Accused And now between Galgamu Ralalage Chandima Dilrukshi Kuliyapitiya Road, Hettipola.

Substituted Petitioner Vs.

Rajapakse Arachchilage Thushara Ranjan No. 1, Kuliyapitiya Road, Hettipola Convicted 1st Respondent The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

2nd Respondent BEFORE : Menaka Wijesundera J.

Neil Iddawala J.

Counsel :

Shiral D. Wanniarachchi for the Petitioner.

Supported on : 02.08. 2021 Decided on : 17.08. 2021 Iddawala - J The Counsel for the substituted petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner)

supported this instant application to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 138 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the Judgment of the High Court of Kuliyapitiya HC 176/2013 dated 10.12. 2016.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Learned High Court Judge convicted the “convicted 1st respondent” by judgment dated 10.12.2016. The learned High Court Judge imposed a term of 8 years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine with a default term of rigorous imprisonment, on the convicted 1st respondent. Furthermore, the he was ordered to pay compensation to the prosecution witnesses.

On the above context, petitioner being the wife of the convicted 1st respondent has filed this application on 05.04 2021 on behalf of the convicted 1st respondent to invoke the revisionary powers of this Court.

Prior to perusing the facts of the case, there are preliminary points that this Court must take cognizance of. Firstly, it is well settled law that the exercise of the revisionary powers is confined to cases in which exceptional circumstances exist, warranting the intervention of court.

In Hotel Galaxy Ltd & others v Mercantile Hotel Management Ltd (1987) 1 SLR

5 Sharvananda C.J. reiterated “it is settled law that the exercise of revisionary powers of the Appellate Court is confined to cases in which exceptional circumstances exist warranting its intervention”

In Kulatilake v Attorney General (2010) 1 SLR 212, it held; "It is trite law that the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court would be exercised if and only if exceptional circumstances are in existence to file such an application. Moreover, it must be noted that the Courts would exercise the revisionary jurisdiction, it being an extra ordinary power vested in Court, especially to prevent miscarriage of justice being done to a person and/or for the due administration of justice."

In Dharmarathne and Another v Palm Paradise Cabanas Ltd. (2003) 3 SLR 24, Gamini Amaratunga J. stated that “.…. the practice of court to insist on the existence of exceptional circumstances for the exercise of revisionary powers has taken deep root in our law and has got hardened into a rule which should not be lightly disturbed”.

In Perera v Silva, (1908) 4 ACR 79, Hutchinson C.J. commenting on the requirement of exceptional circumstances stated that “……...if such selection process is not available, then revisionary jurisdiction of the Court will become a gateway for every litigant to make a second appeal in the garb of a revision application to make the appeal in situations where the legislature has not given the right of appeal”.

However, the mere existence of exceptional circumstances by itself would not allow this court to invoke its revisionary jurisdiction. In order to maintain a revision application, exceptional circumstances should be precisely and expressly averred in the petition.

In Urban Development Authority v Ceylon En