ORDER

B. Sasi Mahendran, J.

The Accused-Petitioner-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") has filed this revision application seeking, inter alia, to challenge and revise the order dated 04.03.2024 issued by the Learned Judge of the Provincial High Court of the Western Province, holden in Panadura. By the said order, the Petitioner’s application was dismissed on the grounds that no exceptional circumstances had been established. The Petitioner asserts that the impugned order made by the Learned Magistrate on 03.02.2023 is unlawful and of such a nature as to shock the conscience of the Court.

According to the petition, the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent”) instituted an action in the Magistrate Court of Moratuwa in terms of section 136 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 (as amended) against the Petitioner for having committed an offence in terms of section 345 of the Penal Code.

Following the accused's plea of not guilty, the learned Magistrate issued a summons for PW1 and PW2 to appear on 08.11.2019 to give evidence. As both witnesses failed to attend, the summons was reissued. On 02.08.2021, the accused filed a motion seeking to discharge from the proceedings under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate discharged the accused from the proceedings. Subsequently, on 03.02.2023, the plaintiff-respondents submitted an application to reopen the case. The court allowed the application and reopened under Section 188 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Against the said decision petitioner filed a revision application before the High Court of Panadura.

The learned High Court Judge made an order on 10.10.2023, directing the learned Magistrate to act under Section 188 (3) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, on 12.02.2024, the Learned Magistrate delivered an order allowing the application of the respondent to reopen the case. It is pertinent to reproduce the reproduce the said part of the order.

එකී නිගමනයන් මත අපරාධ නඩු විධාන සංⶩᮅහ පනතේ 188 (3) අ වගන්ිය සහ 2021 අංක 17 දරණ තකාවිඩ් තරෝග වයා්᭡ිය වැලැ්ේීමට අදාල තාවකාලික විධි විධාන පනතේ 2(1) අ වගන්ිය ⷁᮅකාරව කටයුතු කරමින් තමම නඩුව නැවත ආරම්භ තකාට තවදුරටේ පවරා පවේවාතගන යාම සදහා පැමිනිල්ලට අවසර ලබා තදමි.

Being dissatisfied with the said order, the Petitioner filed a revision application in the Provincial High Court of the Western Province holden in Panadura in terms of Article 154P of the Constitution, read together with Article 138 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Provincial High Court (Special Provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990. After the matter was supported, the Learned High Court Judge delivered the order dated 04.03.2024 dismissing the petition of the Accused on the premise that the petitioner has failed to show any exceptional circumstances to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the said order is produced below.

“අද දින උගේ නීිඥ මහතා විසින් විවෘත අධිකරනතේදී ද්ේවන ලද කරැණුේ COVID-19 වසංගතතයන් පීඩා විදි කාලතේදී රටම අකර්මනය ී ිබූ ආකාරයේ සැළකිල්ලට ගැනීතම්දී තමම ⷁᮅිත ෝදන අයදුම්පත භාර තගන ඉදිරියට පවේවාතගන යාම සදහා අධිකරණතේ හෘද සා්ේිය ⷁᮅකම්පනය කරවන ආකාරතේ සුවිත ිේ කරැණු ඉදිරිපේී තනාමැි බව තමම අධිකරණතේ මතය වන බැවින්, වගඋේතරකරැවන්ට තනා්ේතේසි නිකූේ කිරීමකින් තතාරව තමම ⷁᮅිත ෝධන අයදුම්පⶺᮅය නි ේⷁᮅභ කරමි.”

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner instituted the present revision application in this Court.

The question that we are faced with is whether this Court can exercise its revisionary jurisdiction in respect of the order of the High Court of the Provinces in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction in terms of Article 154P (3) (b) of the Constitution.

Originally, the revisionary jurisdiction was vested with the Court of Appeal under Article 138 of the Constitution.

Article 138 of the Constitution, before the 13th Amendment, reads as follows:

“The Court of Appeal shall have and exercise subject to the provisions of the Constitution or of any law