SRI LANKA INSURANCE CORPORATION

SRI LANKA INSURANCE CORPORATION

VS.

HALLABAGAMAGE AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
DE ABREW, J.
WICKRAMASINGHE, J.
DE SILVA, J.
SC/APPEAL/92/2017
SC/SPL/LA/121/2015
HC COLOMBO HCMCA/222/2013
MC COLOMBO FORT B 148/09
FEBRUARY 12, 2021

Code of Criminal Procedure Act, sections 431, 425-Production inquiry-Admissibility of confession at the production inquiry-Evidence Ordinance, sections 24 and 25-Production can be released to any person

Melted gold was recovered in the possession of the suspect who confessed in his statement to the police that he had stolen jewellery from the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, where he served as an audit trainee. Upon the advice of the Attorney General, the suspect was discharged by the Magistrate. After the production inquiry held under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, the Magistrate disregarded the confession as inadmissible and released the recovered melted gold to the said individual, following the common view that productions shall be released to the person from whom they were taken. The Insurance Corporation, which was a claimant at the inquiry appealed.

Held :

1. At the time of the production inquiry, the person to whom the productions were released was neither a suspect nor an accused. Hence sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Ordinance are inapplicable and his confession to the police is admissible in such an inquiry. A production inquiry is not a criminal proceeding.

2. The same principle is applicable when the production inquiry is held under section 425 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act after the acquittal of the accused upon the conclusion of the trial.

3. The court need not necessarily release the property to the person from whom it was taken. The principle that property be delivered to the person who had possession of it at the time of seizure will not apply if there is an unlawful or criminal element in such possession.

4. The Magistrate was wrong to have released the seized articles to the former suspect, especially in view of the confession made by him to the police. The articles shall be released to the Insurance Corporation.

Cases referred to :

1. Joseph v. Attorney General 47 NLR 446

2. Punchinona v. Hinniappuhamy 60 NLR 518

3. Balagalla v. Somarathne 70 NLR 383

4. Silva and others v. OIC. Police Station, Thambuththegama [1991] 2 Sri LR 83

5. Kanapathipillai v. Meerasaibu 58 NLR 41

APPEAL from the Judgment of the High Court of Colombo.

Anil Silva, P.C., with Leon Fernando and lsuru Jayawardena for the Virtual Complainant-Claimant-Appellant-Appellant.

Asoka Weerasooriya with Arumugam Dhanushan for the 1st Suspect-Claimant-Respondent-Respondent,

Ganga Wakishta Arachchi, S.S.C., for the Attorney General.

cur. adv. vult.

February 12, 2021

DE ABREW, J.

Heard Counsel for both parties in support of their respective cases. This is an appeal fried against the judgment of the learned High Court Judge of Colombo dated 04.06.2015wherein he has dismissed the appeal and the revision application filed by the Virtual-Complainant-Claimant-Appellant- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Virtual-Complainant-Appellant). This Court on 08.05.2017 granted Leave to Appeal on the questions of law set out in paragraph 25(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Petition of Appeal dated 14.07.2015 which are set out below;

1. Did the learned Magistrate as well as the learned High Court Judge fail to consider that in the Statement made by the Claimant- Respondent to the police he categorically stated that the recovered items belonged to the Petitioner Corporation and it was stolen from the Petitioner Corporation?

2. Did the learned High Court Judge misdirect himself in law in not considering at all the voluntary statement made by the Claimant- Respondent to the Police and its significance to the inquiry pertaining in disposal of the stolen jewellery?

3. Did the learned High Court Jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document