S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

The Accused-Appellant-Petitioner, namely Puwakgahakumbure Gedara William, (“Hereinafter referred to as the “Accused”) filed application before this Court preferring Appeal against order by the High Court of Kandy dated the 13^th October 2016.

This Application precedes from a Plaint filed by the Complainant-Respondent- Respondent, the Officer in Charge of the Wattegama Police Station, (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant” at the Magistrate Court of Theldeniya which contained the following 3 charges against the Accused:

a) A charge under Section 177 of the Penal Code, that the Petitioner being a person who was legally bound to state the truth on any subject to a public servant, namely SI./ Upali Chandrasiri of the Wattegama Police, refused to answer the questions demanded of him.

b) A charge under Section 344 of the Penal Code, that the Petitioner obstructed a public servant, namely, the said SI./ Upali Chandrasiri from performing duties, and

c) A charge under Section 186 of the Penal Code, that the Petitioner threatened a public servant, namely the said SI./ Upali Chandrasiri, of injury At the conclusion of the trial, judgment had been delivered on 24^th July 2015 finding the accused guilty of the first and second count and acquitting him on the third count. The Accused was sentenced on 07^th August 2015 imposing fines of LKR 100 on the first count, and LKR 1500 on the second count.

Being aggrieved by the same, the Accused had preferred appeal to the High Court of Kandy to have the judgment of the Magistrate set aside. After hearing submissions of both parties, the Learned High Court Judge delivered order on 13^th October 2016 dismissing the appeal and affirming the Judgment of the Magistrate.

The Accused appears before this Court seeking both above judgments to be set aside on the grounds set out in the Petition dated 23^rd November 2016. On 02^nd June 2017, Court was inclined to grant Leave to Appeal on the following question of law upon hearing both counsel in support of their respective cases;

“Has the prosecution complied with the provisions contained in Section 135(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code in obtaining the sanction of the Hon. Attorney General before filing plaint under Section 177 of the Penal Code”

In ascertaining the same, the facts and circumstances of this application are as enumerated below.

The Facts The facts of the case as per the evidence led by the prosecution are such that a complaint had been made on 7^th January 2001 by the virtual complainant Chandani Wijayanthimala Ekanayake against the Accused that the Accused had failed to return some jewellery which he had taken from her and that the Accused was then required to attend an inquiry into such complaint on 15^th January 2007.

As such the evidence of the six witnesses was called by the prosecution, namely two police officers; SI./ U.G.R. Mudiyanselage Upali Chandrasiri and PS/5942 T. Mudiyanselage Thilakaratne Bana, the complainant; Chandani Wijayanthimala Ekanayake, the complainant’s sister; Roshini Ekanayake and two persons who witnessed the encounter, namely Herath Pahala Gedara Abeyratne and P.G. Yasarathne Banda.

As per the narration of facts by SI Upali Chandrasiri, as supported by the statements of PS Thilakaratne Banda, SI Upali Chandrasiri had commenced inquiring into the said complaint against the Accused relating to the misappropriation of some jewellery and cash belonging to the complainant. He states that at the time the appellant used offensive language on him, obstructed the performance of his duties and the Accused attempted to squeeze his own neck.

H.P Abeyratne and P. Yasarathne Banda had been present at the Wattegama Police on the relevant day for matters unrelated to the present application. The former states that at the time, 30 to 40 persons were present at the police station and that when the relevant inquiry relating to the Accused was taken up, the Accused used offensive language and attempted to squeeze his own