IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Revision under and in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution of the Republic read together with the High Court of the Province (Special provisions) Act No. 19 of 1990 In the matter of an action in the High court under the provision of section 11 of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994 Director General Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07.

Complainant Vs.

Court of Appeal Application No : Balasuriya Arachchige Ranjan Somasinghe CPA/2/21 No. 102/2/A, Rawathawatta Road, Rawathawatta, Moratuwa High Court of Colombo No : Accused HC 20/17 And now between Balasuriya Arachchige Ranjan Somasinghe No. 102/2/A, Rawathawatta Road, Rawathawatta, Moratuwa Accused-Petitioner Vs.

1. Kanishka Wijeratne Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07

2. Sarath Jayamanne PC, Former Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.

Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12

3. Hon. Justice Eva Wanasundara, Chairman

4. Chandra Nimal Wakishta, Member Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07

5. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12 Respondents BEFORE : Menaka Wijesundera J Neil Iddawala J COUNSEL : Dharshana Weraduwage instructed by S. K.

Senarathne for the petitioner Ayesha Jinasena, P.C. Additional Solicitor General with Gayan Maduwage for the respondents.

Supported on : 13.12.2021 Decided on : 11.01.2022 Iddawala – J The accused petitioner sought to issue formal notice to the respondents and supported his application on 13.12.2021. The respondents were represented by counsel and raised objections against such request. The order was reserved for notice.

The main contention for determination by this Court is whether the accused petitioner has established prima facie exceptional circumstances for this Court to issue formal notice on the respondents.

The Impugned Order The petitioner sought to impugn the order of the Learned High Court Judge of Colombo in Case No. HC 20/17 delivered on 10.06.2020. The background facts of the said case are as follows:

An indictment against the accused petitioner was preferred under section 23A of the Bribery Act for committing an offence falling under section 23A (3) of the same Act read with section 11 of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act, No. 19 of 1994 (hereinafter Commission Act). As such the trial commenced on 29.11.2017. Evidence of several witnesses were led and on 23.09.2020 the accused petitioner raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the High Court on the basis that criminal action cannot be instituted against the accused petitioner as there is no lawful directive as per section 11 of the Commission Act. Submissions were made on this regard by both parties and on 10.06.2020, the Learned High Court Judge overruled the said objection and observed the following at page 5 of the impugned order: “ෙ(cid:572) අ(cid:489)ව (cid:488)(cid:431)ප(cid:431)වරයා (cid:618)(cid:646)(cid:486) ෙමම අ(cid:477)කරණයට අ(cid:477)ෙච(cid:676)දනා ප(cid:436)ය(cid:250) ඉ(cid:462)(cid:604)ප(cid:430) කල ප(cid:648) එම අ(cid:477)ෙච(cid:676)දන ප(cid:436)ය ෙමම අ(cid:477)කරණට ඉ(cid:462)(cid:604)ප(cid:430) (cid:251)(cid:605)මට ෙපර (cid:488)(cid:431)ප(cid:431) ෙදපා(cid:601)තෙ(cid:572)(cid:486)(cid:433)ෙ(cid:617) (cid:646)(cid:464)(cid:621) ක(cid:601)තව(cid:597) ෙහ(cid:676) කා(cid:601)ය(cid:486) (cid:541)ශන් (cid:251)(cid:605)මට මහා(cid:477)කරණයට බලය(cid:250) නැත. ඒ ආකාරයට 12 වන (Commission Act) වග(cid:486)(cid:431)(cid:655)(cid:462) සදහ(cid:486) ව(cid:486)ෙ(cid:486) අ(cid:610)ලස් ෙහ(cid:676) (cid:464)ෂණ (cid:618)ම(cid:601)ශන ෙකා(cid:573)ෂ(cid:486) සභාෙ(cid:617) අධ(cid:597)(cid:250)ෂක ජනරා(cid:61