ORDER

AMAL RANARAJA, J.

1. This is an application filed by the Accused-Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioners”) seeking to invoke the discretionary remedy of revision granted to this Court by Article 138 of the Constitution.

2. The disputed indictment has been initially signed on January 28, 2022, and subsequently forwarded to the High Court in the judicial zone of Negombo.

3. Upon receipt, the indictment has been registered and the case number HC 61/2022 assigned to it.

4. However, it has been later revealed that the incident referred to in the charges of the indictment has occurred in an area located within the judicial zone of Chilaw.

5. In response to this discovery, the learned High court Judge of Negombo has issued an order on November 14, 2022, returning the indictment to the Attorney General’s Department to enable the prosecution to forward such indictment to the High Court of Chilaw.

6. The indictment has not been amended. The Attorney General has instead drafted a fresh indictment incorporating into it the same charges as those in the indictment which was returned and forwarded the fresh indictment to the High Court of Chilaw.

7. The fresh indictment forwarded as aforementioned, has been signed on September 15, 2023.

8. The petitioners have subsequently raised a preliminary objection in the High Court of Chilaw, asserting that the right to prosecute the offences outlined in the charges of the indictment has expired. In support of their claim, the petitioners have referred to the provisions in section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.

9. Following the inquiry regarding the preliminary objection, the learned High Court Judge has rejected the petitioner’s argument.

10. Aggrieved by the High Court’s order dated June 07, 2024, the petitioners have filed the present application before this Court.

11. The learned President’s Counsel for the petitioners have contended that the right of prosecution arises only when an accused is brought before a High Court for the indictment, along with the accompanying annexes to be formally presented to such accused.

12. In contrast, the learned Deputy Solicitor General has disagreed with this interpretation. The learned Deputy Solicitor General has argued that the right of prosecution arises as soon as information regarding the commission of an offence is provided to a police officer or an inquirer.

13. In her effort to support her argument, the learned Deputy Solicitor General has directed the Court’s attention to Ordinance No. 15 of 1843, which has been enacted to provide for a more efficient administration of justice in criminal cases, in this island. She has also referred to the judgment in Queen vs. Don Louis as reported in [1863] Ramanathan Reports at page 97 and drawn parallels to the current provisions that echo those of the aforementioned Ordinance, specially with the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979.

14. The “right of prosecution” refers to the legal authority and responsibility to bring criminal charges against a person accused of a crime, typically vested in a prosecutor or a private individual in certain circumstances. This involves investigating the alleged crime, gathering evidence, deciding if there is sufficient evidence to proceed and then presenting that case in Court to prove the guilt of the accused.

15. The initiation of such a process in triggered by providing information either orally or in writing, to a public officer or an investigator as stipulated in section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.

16. Section 456 of Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979 provides as follows;

“The right of prosecution for murder or treason shall not be barred by any length of time, but the right of prosecution for any other crime or offence (save and except those as to which special provision is or shall be made by law) shall be barred by the lapse of twenty years from the time when the crime or offence shall have been c