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.

COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO:

CA/PHC/APN 151/2024 HC/RA/02/2024 : Range Forest Officer Range Forest Office Thanamalwila Complainant Vs.

1. Dapan Durage Dinushika No. 45/3,Shanthapura, Ata Hamara Suriyawewa

2. Gamage Sanjaya Kumara No. 536, Kiri Ibbanwewa Sevanagala Accused Peramadu Gamlath Rallage Tharanga Chandra Kumara No. 4268, Mahagama Colony Sewanagala Claimant Owner AND NOW BETWEEN Peramadu Gamlath Rallage Tharanga Chandra Kumara No. 4268, Mahagama Colony Sewanagala Claimant Owner-Petitioner Vs.

1. Range Forest Officer Range Forest Office Thanamalwila Complainant-Respondent 2. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12. Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Peramadu Gamlath Rallage Tharanga Chandra Kumara No. 4268, Mahagama Colony Sewanagala Claimant Owner-Petitioner-Petitioner Vs.

3. Range Forest Officer Range Forest Office Thanamalwila Complainant-Respondent-Respondent

4. Hon. Attorney-General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12.

Respondent-Respondent Before : B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Amal Ranaraja, J.

Counsel: Nihara Randeniya for he Petitioner Osward Perera SC. for the Respondents Argued On: 10.03.2025 Order On: 28.03.2025 Order B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Claimant owner - Petitioner- Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) filed this application on 02.12.2024 seeking to set aside the orders of the High Court of Embilipitiya dated 22.10.2024 and the Magistrate Court of Embilipitiya dated 19.01.2024.

According to the Petitioner, the two Accused were charged for transporting 16 trunks of Margosa, Helamba, and Teak worth Rs. 101,084.80 using the Lorry bearing No. 41-8223 without a license being obtained from the competent authority and charged under Section 25 (1) read with Sections 40(1) A, 40(1) B and Section 52 of the Forest Ordinance as amended. The Petitioner states that upon pleading guilty on 11.02.2021, both Accused were fined a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each in default 2 months simple imprisonment.

Thereafter, an inquiry was held by the Magistrate where the Petitioner claimed the said vehicle to be released to him on a bond worth Rs. 1.5 Million.

The Learned Magistrate by order dated 19.01.2024 confiscated the said lorry ordering the vehicle to be handed over to the custody of the Magistrate’s Court on the basis that the Petitioner has failed to establish that he has taken all the precautions to prevent the use of the said vehicle for the commission of the offence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred a revision application to the High Court of Embilipitiya on the following grounds;

a. The order of the Learned Magistrate is unlawful, contrary to the law as well as the accepted legal norms b. The Learned Magistrate has arrived at his decision by misconceiving the law and facts of the case.

c. The Learned Magistrate had made the order without considering the evidence placed before him to prove the precautionary measures that had been taken.

The Petitioner avers that the said revision application was dismissed by the Learned High Court Judge by order dated 22.10.2024 affirming the order of the Learned Magistrate on the basis that the Petitioner has failed to establish exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice that shocks the conscience of the Court. further, he has indicted in the order that, the Petitioner has failed to place any evidence at the inquiry that he has taken precautionary measures to prevent the use of the vehicle to commit the offence.

Against the said orders, the Petitioner has preferred the present revision application in this Court.

The question that we are faced with is whether this Court can exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in respect of the order of the High Court of the Provinces in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction in terms of Article 154