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. 02 of 1978 against Mr..H.A. Ratnayake SC Rule 04/2022 H.A. Mahinda Ratnayake No. 26/13, Madarata Housing, Uplands, Aruppola Respondent Before : Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, CJ S. Thurairaja, PC, J.

Mahinda Samayawardana, J.

Counsel : Anura Maddegoda, PC with Ms. Nadeesha Kannangara & Isuru Deshapriya for the Respondent Attorney-at-Law.

Ms. W. Hettige, SDSG. for the Hon. Attorney General.

Rohan Sahabandu PC, with Ms. S. Senanayake for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.

Written submissions On behalf of the Hon. Attorney General on 09.02.2023.

filed Inquiry on : 14.07.2023 Decided on : 10.08.2023 Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, CJ The Registrar of the High Court of the Central Province sitting in Kandy acting in terms of section 42(4) of the Judicature Act communicated to the registrar of the Supreme Court, that the respondent attorney-at-law was sentenced by the learned High Court judge having found him guilty of four counts on which he stood indicted. A fine of five hundred rupees had been imposed on one count and he had been sentenced to a term of one-year rigorous imprisonment for 3 counts. Those terms of imprisonment had been ordered to run concurrently.

On 20^th September 2022, the respondent attorney-at-law who was represented by counsel appeared on notice issued by this Court and the registrar of this Court read over the charges against him in open court. Thereafter the show cause notice along with the charges was served on him. The aforesaid charges allege, that the respondent attorney-at-law fraudulently conspired to attest the deed bearing no 387 dated 05.02.1999, made a false statement in attesting the said deed and committed forgery in attesting the said deed. Furthermore, the respondent attorney-at- law had acted in breach of the rules set out in section 31 of the Notaries Ordinance. Thereby, the respondent attorney-at-law had conducted in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by attorneys-at-law of good repute and competency as well as in a manner which is regarded as deplorable by fellow members of the profession. The respondent attorney-at-law thereby breached Rule 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules, 1988 as well as Rule 61 of the said Rules as he had conducted in such a manner that is unworthy of an attorney-at-law.

This Court acting in terms of section 42(4) of the Judicature Act, suspended the respondent attorney-at-law from practice in terms of section 42(3) pending the final determination of these proceedings. The learned President’s Counsel for the respondent attorney-at-law submitted that no appeal has been made against the conviction or the sentence of the High Court and that the respondent attorney-at-law had already served the term of imprisonment and paid all fines. The respondent attorney-at-law pleaded guilty to the charges and sought time to show cause and plead in mitigation by way of an affidavit as to why he should not be either removed or suspended from practice, by this Court.

The respondent attorney-at-law by his affidavit dated 12^th December 2022 pleaded not to suspend or remove him from practice. The learned President’s Counsel in his submissions drew the attention of the Court to several mitigatory factors averred in the affidavit of the respondent attorney-at-law and pleaded the Court to act with clemency. Expression of regret and remorse, the old age, previous good conduct and the fact that he had already served the term of imprisonment were pleaded as mitigatory factors.

The respondent was admitted and enrolled by the Supreme Court as an attorney-at-law on 17^th November 1988 and on 01^st March 1996 he had obtained the license to practice as a notary public. He had been in public service for nearly three decades before he commenced practicing as an attorney-at-law and a notary public. He h