IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Rule in terms of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978, against Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne.

SC Rule No. 16/2023 W. S. B. S. Fernando Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Superior Courts Complex, Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT -Vs-

Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne No. 57, Baseline Road, Colombo 08 No. 1, M.D.H. Jayawardenapura, Pelawatte, Battarumulla.

RESPONDENT BEFORE : P. PADMAN SURASENA, J KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J COUNSEL : Shanil Kularatne, PC with Ms. Hashini Opatha, SSC for the Attorney-

General.

Yalith Wijesurendra for the Respondent.

Rohan Sahabandu, PC with Ms. Chathurika Elvitigala, Ms. Sachini Senanayake and Ms. Pubudu Weerasuriya for the BASL.

INQUIRY ON : 11-12-2024

18-02-2025 DECIDED ON : 06-08-2025 P. PADMAN SURASENA, CJ This Court having considered a complaint made by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, has caused the Rule dated 28-08-2024 issued against the Respondent Attorney-at-Law, under the hand of the Registrar of this Court. The said Rule has alleged that the Respondent Attorney-

at-Law has engaged in the following acts:

(a) applying to peruse the case record of the case bearing No. COC-0011-22 from the main record room of the Court of Appeal Registry which is situated at the Kaluthota Building, No. 19, Sangharaja Mawatha, Colombo

10;

(b) furnishing a false name i.e., Mr. C Fernando (Mr. Chandrasiri Fernando)

when applying for permission to peruse the said record;

1 As he was, at the time of hearing this matter.

(c) proceeding to tear two pages (four sides) from the afore-said case record, (torn pages contain the caption of the case and notice issued to the Respondent which contained the charges) which was detected by the staff of the said record room of the Court of Appeal;

(d) stating to the staff of the record room that he was a relative of one Jayathunga (an Attorney-at-Law) who is the Petitioner in the case bearing No. COC-0011-22 which is the case relevant to the case record he had tampered with;

(e) not providing any further explanation in respect of causing damage and mischief to the said case record and removing pages from the same;

(f) engaging in that act with an intention to cause the theft of the said pages;

Upon the staff of the record room detecting the afore-said acts of the Respondent Attorney- at-Law and upon complaint, the officers of Maradana Police Station took him into custody and produced him before the Magistrate of Maligakanda who has enlarged him on two surety bail of Rs. 500,000.00 on or around 25.01.2023. This was on the basis that he is a heart patient and a diabetic.

Thus, there is a case pending against the Respondent Attorney-at-Law in the Magistrate’s Court of Maligakanda under case bearing No. B/3285/23 based on the above-mentioned incidents.

The Rule having considered the serious, felonious nature and the fraudulent tenor of his actions, has alleged as follows:

(a) by the fraudulent and felonious actions in submitting a false name to peruse the Case Record of case bearing No. COC-0011-22 and tearing two pages of the same, the Respondent Attorney-at-Law has committed a breach of Rule 11 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988 made under Article 136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka;

(b) the aforesaid conduct amounts to acts of deceit, malpractice, crime or offence which warrants the Respondent Attorney-at-Law’s suspension from office or removal from office under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978;

(c) by reason of the aforesaid conduct which cannot be countenanced, the Respondent Attorney-at-Law has conducted himself in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable of Attorneys-at-Law of good repute and competence and has thus committed a breach of Rule 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988 made under