ORDER

AMAL RANARAJA, J.

1. The Accused-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) has been indicted in the High Court of Colombo in Case No. HC 400/19. The charge in the indictment is as follows;

You did have in your possession 30 tablets of dimethyl 3,4, methylenedioxyphenethylamine (commonly known as MDMA tablets) to sell, in contravention of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act No.01 of 2008 punishable under Section 2(1) of the said Act.

2. Though the petitioner had not done so initially he has pleaded guilty to the charge in the indictment subsequently and has been convicted. Upon conviction, the petitioner has been sentenced to six years’ rigorous imprisonment. Further, the Learned High Court Judge has also imposed a fine of Rs. 1500/- in lieu of restoring the sentence held in suspense in Fort Magistrate Court Case No. 91644

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentencing order has made the instant revision application in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution and prayed that the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Learned High Court Judge of Colombo dated 15.07.2024 in High Court Case No. 400/19 be set aside.

4. The instant application was supported by the Learned President’s Counsel seeking notice to the Complainant-Respondent. Hence, this order is pronounced after considering whether there are sufficient grounds before Court to issue such notice.

5. PW-01, PW-02 and some other officers attached to the Maligawattha Police Station have on 10.10.2015, at 19.00 hrs, left the station to engage in regular surveillance duties. The team of officers have reached the area in which Jummah Musjid Road was situated at about 20.40 hrs. When they arrived at such location the officers have observed an individual behaving in a suspicious manner. PW-01 has proceeded to search such individual and has taken into custody from the possession of the latter two packets of tablets containing a psychotropic substance. There had been 45 such tablets in each packet. The identity of the individual has been ascertained and subsequently arrested by PW-01. The officers have thereafter set out with such individual named Mohammed Naiser to search his house situated at a location close-by. Though the officers searched the house of the individual named Mohammed Naiser, they have not found anything illegal upon their search. On their return, the officers have observed another individual also behaving in a suspicious manner at a location close to the one at which the individual named Mohammed Naiser was arrested. PW-01 has proceeded to search the second individual also. The second individual searched by PW-01 had been the petitioner of this application. PW-01 has taken into his custody from the possession of the petitioner two packets. One packet has contained 30 yellow coloured tablets and the other 8 pink coloured blotter papers. The yellow coloured tablets have contained a psychotropic substance.

6. The Learned President’s Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Learned High Court Judge has proceeded to convict the petitioner mechanically without considering as to whether the ingredients of the offence in the charge the petitioner has been indicted for; has been established by the prosecution. To support such contention, the Learned Presidents’ Counsel has complained that;

i. There is a doubt as to whether a raid has been conducted as narrated by PW-01, and that the prosecution has failed to establish the inward journey of the production through cogent evidence.

ii. That two credible officers who participated in the raid have not been examined by the prosecution in order to establish its case.

iii. That the prosecution making an application to have a meeting/discussion with PW-02 before such witness was examined by the prosecution has resulted in gross prosecutorial misconduct.

7. The Learned Presidents Counsel has also contended that the