IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 128 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

S.C. Appeal No. 88/21 Officer-in-Charge, S.C. S.P.L. Leave to Appeal No.

Police Station, 37/2018 Maharagama.

Court of Appeal (PHC)

PLAINTIFF Application No. 65/2017 Vs.

High Court of Colombo Case Nadugala Vidhana Pathiranage Piyadasa No. H.C.R.A. 50/2017 Rathuralagewatte, Magistrate Court Case No.

Hiththatiya Meda, 21538/A Matara.

DEFENDANT AND BETWEEN Nadugala Vidhana Pathiranage Piyadasa Rathuralagewatte, Hiththatiya Meda, Matara.

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Vs.

1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

2. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Maharagama.

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN Nadugala Vidhana Pathiranage Piyadasa Rathuralagewatte, Hiththatiya Meda, Matara.

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-

PETITIONER Vs.

1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

2. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Maharagama.

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS-

RESPONDENTS AND BETWEEN Nadugala Vidhana Pathiranage Piyadasa Rathuralagewatte, Hiththatiya Meda, Matara.

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER-

PETITIONER-PETITIONER Vs.

1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

2. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Maharagama.

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS AND NOW BETWEEN Nadugala Vidhana Pathiranage Piyadasa Rathuralagewatte, Hiththatiya Meda, Matara.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Vs.

1. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

2. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Maharagama.

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J. AND ARJUNA OBEYESEKERE, J COUNSEL: K. Deekiriwewa with Mrs. M. K. Herath and Dr. Kanchana de Silva for the Defendant-Appellant.

Ms. V. Hettige, SDSG for the Respondent-Respondents.

WRITTEN Defendant-Appellant on 25^th April 2022 SUBMISSIONS: Respondent-Respondents on 29^th March 2022 ARGUED ON: 03^rd May 2024 DECIDED ON: 30^th April 2025 THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

1. The Defendant-Appellant, Nadugala Vidhana Pathiranage Piyadasa Rathuralagewatte (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”), was charged in the Magistrate of Nugegoda on four counts in terms of Section 328 of the Motor Traffic Act in Case No. 21538/A. The Appellant pleaded guilty to all charges. By sentencing order dated 18^th January 2017, the Learned Magistrate imposed fines of Rs. 1500, Rs. 2000, Rs. 5000, and Rs. 2000 in respect of the four counts, along with a compensation payment of Rs. 20,000 to the victim.

2. By petition dated 15^th March 2017, the Appellant filed a revision application in the High Court of Colombo seeking, inter alia, a revision of the Learned Magistrate’s order and a stay of proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court.

3. By order dated 29^th March 2017, the Learned High Court Judge dismissed the application on the grounds of non-compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Court of Appeal (Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990. Specifically, the High Court found that the Appellant had failed to include an averment confirming that the jurisdiction of the Court had not been previously invoked in respect of the same matter.

4. By petition dated 22^nd May 2017, the Appellant lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal, challenging the order of the High Court of Colombo. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal, citing the Appellant’s failure to submit a certified copy of the impugned proceedings, an omission that constituted non-compliance with Rule 3(1)(a) read with Rule 3(1)(b) of the Appellant Procedure Rules. The Court of Appeal, in upholding such preliminary objection, refused and dismissed the Appellant’s application.

5. The Appellant subsequently invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, seeking, inter alia, to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the preceding order of the High Court of Colombo. Notably, rather than filing a singular appeal, the Appellant submitted no fewer than fo