LANSAGE BASIL

Vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUPREME COURT
DE ABREW, J.
MALALGODA, J.
SURASENA, J.
SC/APPEAL/20/2017
SC/SPL/LA/192/2016
CA/PHC/APN/20/2016
HC PANADURA BA 39/2015
MARCH 3, 2020

Revision-Locus standi-Judicature Act, section 16

The father of an accused has locus standi to maintain a revision application.

Cases referred to:

1. Senathilaka v. Attorney General [1998) 3 Sri LR 290
2. Sudharman de Silva v. Attorney General [1986] 1 Sri LR 9 at 15
3. Rasheed Ali v. Mohamed Ali [1981) 1 Sri LR 262
4. Attorney General v. Gunawardena [1996) 2 Sri LR 149

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

J.P. Gamage for the Petitioner-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant.

Suharshi Herath, S.S.C., for the Attorney General.

cur. adv. vult.

July 3, 2020

DE ABREW,J.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 8.8.2016.

The Petitioner-Petitioner-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner-Appellant) filed an application for bail in the High Court of Panadura seeking to enlarge his son (the suspect) on bail. The suspect was remanded by the learned Magistrate. The allegation levelled against the suspect was that he was in possession of 42 grams of heroin. But

according to the Government Analyst's report pure quantity of heroin was 3.89 grams of heroin. I must state here that the Government Analyst's report is not available in the brief. But their Lordships of the Court of Appeal in their judgment dated 8.8.2016 have observed that the pure quantity of heroin, according to the Government Analyst's report, was 3.89 grams.

The learned High Court Judge by his order dated 13.1.2016 refused the application of the Petitioner-Appellant for bail. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned High Court Judge, the Petitioner-Appellant who is the father of the suspect filed a revision application in the Court of Appeal seeking to revise and set aside the said order of the learned High Court Judge. The Court of Appeal, by its judgment dated 8.8.2016 dismissed the said revision application. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Petitioner-Appellant has appealed to this court. This court by its order dated 27.1.2017, granted leave to appeal on questions of law set out in paragraphs 10(a) and 10(b) of the Petition of Appeal dated 15.9.2016 which are reproduced below;

1. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in deciding that the Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the Application for Revision?

2. Did the Court of Appeal err in law in not considering the fact since the Petitioner is the Petitioner in the Application for bail in the High Court, the Petitioner has locus standi to maintain the Revision Application in the Court of Appeal against the order of the High Court?

The Petitioner-Appellant is the father of the suspect in this case. When the matter was taken up for argument in the Court of Appeal, the learned Senior State Counsel who appeared for the Attorney General raised an objection to the effect that the Petitioner-Appellant had no locus standi to maintain the application for revision. Their Lordships of the Court of Appeal have relied on the judgment of the Court of Appeal (judqment of Justice Jayasuriya) in the case of Senathilaka v. Attorney General.1 The headnote of the said judgment states as follows. "The father of the accused has no locus standi to maintain the revision application."

In Senathilaka's case (supra) the accused who was convicted and sentenced did not appeal against the conviction and the sentence. The father of the accused filed a revision application against the conviction and the sentence. His Lordship Justice Jayasuriya observed that it

was a belated application. The accused in Senathilaka's case who was granted bail did not face the trial and after an inquiry under section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge proceeded with the trial and convicted the accused. His Lor