IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of a Revision Application made under and in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution.

CA Revision Application: Hon. Attorney General, CPA/0105/23 Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

High Court of Kegalle COMPLAINANT Case No. HCC/3827/2018 Vs.

Naulage Manjula Kumara

2^ND ACCUSED AND Naulage Manjula Kumara

2^ND ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENT AND NOW BETWEEN Naulage Manjula Kumara (By his mother Gunawathi Hathurusinghage)

2^ND ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Vs.

Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Kanchana Ratwatte with Lakmal Ratnayake for the 2nd Accused-Appellant Supported on : 23-11-2023 Order on : 13-02-2024 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an application by one Naulage Manjula Kumara, admittedly the 2nd accused in the High Court of Kegalle Case No. 3827/18, who has termed himself as the second accused-appellant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), seeking to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction granted to this Court in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution.

This application was supported by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, for notice on the respondent, namely the Attorney General, and this order is pronounced after considering whether there exists any basis to issue notice of this matter as pleaded.

At the very outset, it needs to be emphasized that revision is a discretionary remedy that can be granted only upon exceptional circumstances.

It is well settled law that any applicant who seeks the discretionary remedy of revision must specifically plead by way of a separate averment in the petition filed before the Court the exceptional circumstances he or she is relying to obtain relief.

In the petition filed before this Court, the petitioner has failed to disclose any specific exceptional circumstances, which he relies upon, other than stating some general grounds, which are grounds that need to be urged in an appeal challenging the conviction and the sentence.

Considering a preliminary objection raised under similar circumstances, the Court of Appeal held in the case of Rustom Vs. Hapangama and Co. 1978/79

2SLR 225 that;

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case there are no such exceptional circumstances disclosed as would cause the Appellate Court to exercise its discretion and grant relief by way of revision. Unless there was something illegal about the order made by the trial judge which has deprived the petitioner of some right, the justice of the case required that the Court of Appeal would not in the circumstances of this case grant the petitioner the indulgence of exercising its revisionary powers and the preliminary objection must therefore be upheld.”

In the case of Wijesinghe Vs. Tharmaratnam (Sri Skantha Law report Vol-IV

47), it was observed;

“Revision is a discretionary remedy and will not be available unless the application discloses circumstances which shocks the consciences of the Court.”

It was held in the case of Hotel Galaxy (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Mercantile Hotels Management Ltd. 1987 1 SLR 5 that;

“It is settled law that the exercise of the revisionary powers of the appellate Court is confined to cases in which exceptional circumstances exist warranting its intervention.”

Although the application of the petitioner should stand dismissed due to the above fundamental defect in the application, I will now proceed to consider whether there is any material placed before the Court that discloses exceptional circumstances, which warrants the intervention of this Court in order to set aside the judgment and the sentence of the High Court, and to order a trial De Novo as pleaded by the petitioner.

To succeed in his application for notice, the petitioner has to establish that the learned High Court Judge of Kegalle has failed to fol