IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Section 15 of the Judicature Act read with Section 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, Section 13 (2) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994.

Court of Appeal No: The Director General, CA/LTA/0006/16 Commission to Investigate Allegation of Bribery or Corruption.

COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Colombo Weerasekara Aarachchilage Lalith Kumara Case No: B/1392/02 21/185, Araliya Uyana, Depaanama, Pannipitiya.

ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN The Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegation of Bribery or Corruption.

COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT Vs.

Weerasekara Aarachchilage Lalith Kumara

21/185, Araliya Uyana, Depaanama, Pannipitiya. ACCUSED-RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Anusha Sammandapperuma, Assistant Director Legal for the Complainant-Appellant : Rienzie Arsecularatne, P.C. with Chenelle Fernando for the Accused-Respondent Supported on : 11-05-2023 Written Submissions : 10-02-2022 (By the Complainant-Appellant)

: 10-02-2022 (By the Accused-Respondent)

Order on : 13-06-2023 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an application by the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) seeking leave to appeal in terms of Article 138 and 139 of The Constitution read with section 15 of the Judicature Act, section 331 of the Code of Criminal Act No. 15 of 1979 and section 13 (2) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994.

This application emanates from the judgement of the learned High Court Judge of Colombo pronounced on 07-09-2016, where the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was acquitted by the learned High Court Judge.

The complainant indicted the accused on 8 counts in terms of the Bribery Act. The allegation against the accused was that, he being a police officer, demanded a gratification of Rs. 10000/= from two persons on 2nd February 1997, and accepted Rs. 2000/= and a gold chain worth Rs. 7500/= in that process. Accordingly, he was charged for having committed offences punishable in terms of section 16 (b) and section 19 (c) of the Bribery Act.

After trial, the learned High Court Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused accordingly.

It is against the said acquittal; the complainant is now seeking leave to appeal. This Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the complainant in support of the application for leave to appeal, and had the opportunity of listening to the learned President’s Counsel who represented the accused at the trial in opposing the application of the complainant.

In the petition before this Court, the complainant has urged the following grounds as reasons for seeking leave to appeal against the judgement amongst other grounds of law and facts and of mixed questions of fact and law, which may be urged by the Counsel at the hearing of this application.

1. The learned High Court Judge erred in that the amended indictment had not been read out to the respondent thereby, violating the respondent’s rights.

2. The learned High Court Judge erred by concluding that the investigation conducted by the Bribery Commission did not warrant the Director General to file an action.

3. The learned High Court Judge erred in concluding that the source of the complaint, wiz V5 had not been investigated.

4. The learned High Court Judge erred in not considering the provisions of section 24 of the Bribery Act.

In her submission before the Court, apart from the above grounds, the learned Counsel for the complainant urged that the learned High Court Judge failed to consider the provisions of section 24 of Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Cor