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.

Officer In Charge Police Station Thanamalwila Complainant COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO:

CA/PHC/134/2024 HC MONARAGAHA CASE NO:

REV/25/2023 Vs.

Thanthrasinghage Dinusha Saranaga

18th Post Suriyaara Thanamalwila Accused Wijesinghege Chandrawathie Galagawa Gedara, Arambekema Hambegamuwa Registered Owner of the Vehicle Weerasekara Kankanamge nandawathie No. 16, ½ Wijayapura Suriyaara Thanamalwila Registered Owner of the Trailor AND NOW BETWEEN Wijesinghege Chandrawathie Galagawa Gedara, Arambekema Hambegamuwa Registered Owner of the Vehicle-Petitioner Vs.

Officer In Charge Police Station Thanamalwila Complainant-Respondent Hon. Attorney General General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12

2^nd Respondent AND NOW BETWEEN Wijesinghege Chandrawathie Galagawa Gedara, Arambekema Hambegamuwa Registered Owner of the Vehicle-Petitioner-

Petitioner Vs.

Officer In Charge Police Station Thanamalwila Complainant-Respondent-Respondent Hon. Attorney General General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12

2^nd Respondent-Respondent Before : B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

Amal Ranaraja, J.

Counsel: Shenal Fernando with Thisura Hewawasam for the Petitioner Support On: 07.02.2025 Written Submissions On: 11.03.2025 (by the Petitioner)

Order On: 27.03.2025 ORDER B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Petitioner filed this revision application praying inter alia to revise the order of the Learned Judge of the Provincial High Court of Uva Province holden in Monaragala by order dated 19.07.2024 dismissing the Petitioner’s application that the Petitioner has failed to establish any exceptional circumstances and that the order is illegal that shocks the conscience of the Court.

The relevant excerpt of the said order is reproduced below for easy reference;

“මෙෙ අධිකරණමේ ⷁᮅතිම ෝධනය බලය ᮅ㭹යාත්ෙක කිරීෙට නම් ⷁᮅ න් ගත නිමයෝගය මුළුෙනින්ෙ ම ෝෂ සහගත එකක් විය යුතු අතර, පහල අධිකකරණය විසින් ලබාම න ල නිමයෝගය ෙගින් මෙෙ අධිකරණෙය ෙනස ⷁᮅකම්පනය කරන තරම් ⷁᮅබල යුක්තිය අපගෙනය වීෙක් සිදුවී තිබිය යුතුය. මෙහිදී ො ොමේ

අවධානය පහත සඳහන් නඩු තීන්දු මකමරහි මයාමු කරන ලදී.

.......

ඒ අනුව මෙෙ ⷁᮅතිම ෝධන ඉ්᭺ීෙට ඉඩ දීෙට ⷁᮅොණවත් සුවිම ්ෂී කරුණක් මහෝ මෙෙ අධිකරණමේ අධිකරණෙය ෙනස ⷁᮅකම්පනය කරනු ලබන කිසිදු නීතිමේ අපගෙනයක් සිදු වී මනාෙැති බැවින්

ⷁᮅතිම ෝධන ඉ්᭺ීෙ ⷁᮅතික්මෂප් කරමි.” (Page 107 of the brief)

Against the said order, the Petitioner has invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution.

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 154P (3) (b) of the Constitution.

Originally, the revisionary jurisdiction was vested with the Court of Appeal under Article

138 of the Constitution.

Article 138 of the Constitution before the 13th Amendment reads as follows:

“The Court of Appeal shall have and exercise subject to the provisions of the Constitution or of any law, an appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law which shall be committed by any Court of First Instance, tribunal or other institution and sole and exclusive cognizance, by way of appeal, revision and restitutio in integrum of all causes, suits, actions, prosecutions, matters and things of which such Court of First Instance, tribunal or other institution may have taken cognizance.”

After the 13^th Amendment, according to Section 5 of the High Court of Provinces (Special Provinces) Act No. 19 of 1990 read with Article 154P (3) (b) of the Constitution enacted by the 13th Amendment, entitles any person to file a revision application in the High Court of the Province.

According to the judgment of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (1987) 2 SLR 310, the Supreme Court held that, on page 323;

“The Bills do not effect any change in