IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Bakmeeange Gedara Sunil Ananda Senevirathne, No.35, Diyapalagoda, Muruthalawa SC. Appeal No. 52/2016 Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant SC. HC (CA) LA Application No. 293/2015 Vs.

CP/HCCA/Kandy No. 47/2014 (LA)

Athula Amarasinghe, D.C. Kandy Case No. 35137/05/MR OfÏcer-in-Charge, Police Station, Hasalaka.

Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent Before: Buwaneka Aluwihare PC, J., P. Padman Surasena J., E.A.G.R. Amarasekara J.

Counsel: H. Withanachchi with Shantha Karunadhara for the Plaintiff-Respondent-

Appellant.

Suren Gnanaraj SSC for Hon. AG.

Argued on: 28.01.2020 Decided on: 11.07.2023 E.A.G.R. Amarasekara J.

The Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiff’) instituted the action bearing No. 35137/05/MR in the District Court of Kandy against the Defendant-Petitioner-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Defendant’) praying inter alia for a judgment as follows.

a) Directing the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000,000/= as damages to the Plaintiff for the alleged acts done maliciously against the Plaintiff under the cover of his authority.

b) For legal interests at 15% on the aforesaid amount from the date of the Plaint till the payment in full.

In the caption, the Defendant was named as Athula Amarasinghe, OfÏcer in Charge, Police Station, Hasalaka. Thus, it is clear that the allegations were based on the acts of the Defendant done under his authority as the OfÏcer in Charge of the Police Station, Hasalaka.

The Plaintiff in his Plaint averred as follows;

1. The Defendant had maliciously directed Plaintiff’s wife, a WPC, to make a complaint against the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant, using the said Police Complaint, had informed the Plaintiff via several telephone messages to the Koswatta Police Station where he was serving, to be present on 03.04.2005 at 10 a.m. at Hasalaka Police Station for an inquiry into the said Complaint-vide paragraph 7 of the Plaint.

The said messages received via telephone contained information about certain inquiries to be held against him into an alleged assault to his wife, neglect to maintain his children and wife and use of abusive words to threaten his wife. It is further stated that steps would be taken under Section 308 (a) of the Penal Code.

3. The Plaintiff attended Hasalaka Police Station on 03.04.2005 to comply with the said messages he received but the Defendant used obscene words towards the Plaintiff and attempted to assault him, threatened him and kept him in police custody- vide paragraph 9 of the Plaint.

4. On 19.04.2005, the Plaintiff’s wife, on the instigation of the Defendant, filed a maintenance action bearing No. 34725 in the Mahiyanganaya Magistrate Court.

5. The Defendant on 25/7/2005 also submitted a report under reference No. BR 750/05 on the basis of a complaint made by his wife on 30.05.2005 and sought notices to be issued on the Plaintiff through Koswatta Police.

6. On 02/6/2005 and 05/6/2005, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff, by telephone messages through OIC Police Station Puttalam, to be present at Hasalaka Police Station and caused notice to be served through Koswatta Police Station knowing very well that the Plaintiff was serving at Puttalam Police Station. This was done with an intention to get a warrant issued against him.

7. When the Plaintiff made his presence at the Hasalaka Police Station he was subjected to abusive words and threats by Police OfÏcers who were instigated by the Defendant.

8. The Defendant’s malicious conduct on 03.04.2005 at the police station was defamatory and caused mental pain to the Plaintiff and this conduct of the Defendant caused the breakdown of the Plaintiff’s matrimonial life.

9. Even though the Defendant had acted in the capacity of a Public OfÏcer, he had used his ofÏcial capacity maliciously towards the Plaintiff and the Defendant is personally liable for his conduct.

Thus, it is clear that the action is based on the actions taken by the Defendant in his