RAVINDRAJITH
VS.
 ATTORNEY GENERAL

COURT OF APPEAL
H. N. J. PERERA, J.
JAYATHILAKE, J.
CA 68/2013
HC TANGALLE 18/2012
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
OCTOBER 20, 2014

Poison, Opium & Dangerous Drugs Act 17 of 1929 amended by Act No. 13 of 1984 - Is there a minimum mandatory sentence Court has to impose? - Is there a discrepancy between the English and Sinhala versions of the sentence to be imposed? - Constitution Article 23 - 16th Amendment - Article 23(1)

The Accused - Appellant was indicted on two counts for possessing and trafficking of a quantity less than I gram of heroin contrary to section 54 A(d) and 54A(c) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Act. The Trial Judge convicted the Accused - Appellant on his own plea and imposed a custodial sentence of 3 years simple imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default to a term of 6 months simple imprisonment on each count, both sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

It was contended in appeal, that the Trial Judge erred in law when he held that there was minimum mandatory sentence which he has to impose and that he has no option but to sentence the Accused to imprisonment - believing that he