IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of Writs of Certiorari under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Case No: CA/WRIT/485/2022

1. J.B. Shantha Perera No. 05, Stork Place, Colombo 10. PETITIONER Vs.

1. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12.

RESPONDENT Before: Hon. D.N. Samarakoon, J.

Counsel: Rienzie Arsekularatne with Punsisi Gamage for the Petitioner.

Shanil Kularatne Senior Deputy Solicitor General for the Respondent.

Supported on: 10.11.2023 Written Submissions: 15.12.2023 by the Petitioner.

01.12.2023 by the Respondents.

Decided on: 29.04.2024 D.N. Samarakoon, J The supporting of this matter was held before me and Justice Iddawala on 14.11.2023. Justice Iddawala left judiciary and did not function on this Bench after 15.12.2023. From 18.12.2023 I functioned as Single Judge. Learned Counsel appearing on 20.03.2024 consented to myself giving this order as Single Judge. This is not a criminal appeal. This is an application for a writ.

Written submissions on behalf of the petitioner in this case, which is J. B. Shantha Perera vs. Attorney General C. A. Writ 485 2022 on the question pertaining to the issuance of notice and interim relief are short. Here is what it says, “It is submitted that the indictment presented section 454 of the Penal Code. As per the indictment (P4) it appears that the (P4) set out two counts of forgery under prosecution in order to prove the aforesaid charges has listed eleven witnesses (in the list of witnesses) out of whom witnesses 01 to 06 are lay witnesses.

It is submitted, paragraph 21 of the Petition (sub paragraphs (b) to (h) sets out the gist of the statements that the said six lay witnesses have made to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

Based on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the evidence that the said witnesses 01 to 06 are expected to provide at the trial, in no way can advance the proposition that the Petitioner forged the summons in question, marked P4C1, P4C2 (in case No. DLM 00036/2013 and P4C3 (

in case number DDV 695/12).

Further the rest of the witnesses, other than the EQD (PW 11) are police witnesses and they do not testify to any recovery that they made from the Petitioner during the course of the investigation and as such they can only testify with regard to the recording of statements and obtaining specimen handwriting of the Petitioner and obtaining certain seals used in the registry of the District Court for the purpose of sending same to the EQD. Thus. it is submitted the only evidence that the prosecution can place before the trial Court is the testimony of the EQD who has opined that certain hand writing and numericals contained in the said summons; i.e. P4C1, P4C2 and P4C3 are those of the Petitioner, who provided handwriting and numerical samples.

Assuming that the opinion of the EQD is correct, it is submitted as per the several decisions set out in paragraph 28 of the petition no conviction can be entered against the Petitioner based only on the opinion of the handwriting expert.

If the law is as aforesaid, there is no purpose of putting the Petitioner through a trial to face the inevitable outcome of an acquittal, for no Court of law can legally enter a conviction based solely on the opinion evidence of the handwriting expert (EQD).”

In the petition, (not in the amended one) the petitioner cites, the following 07 cases, “The Petitioner states, that it is well settled law that expert opinion with regard to handwriting only, cannot be the basis for a conviction to be entered in a case and as such the EQD’s report cannot form the legal basis upon which the conviction for forgery and/or using as genuine a forged document can be entered against the Petitioner as set out in the following decisions;

a) Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab 1977 AIR (S.C.) 1091 Per P.N. Bhagawati J - It is now well settl