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 was obligated by law to impose the minimum mandatory sentence - fine and imprisonment.

It was also contended that, the Trial Judge erred in law as a result of the confusion which has occurred following a discrepancy in the Sinhala and English versions of the amending Act no. 13 of 1984. It was contended that there is a discrepancy between the English and Sinhala versions of the sentence - as per part three of the 3rd schedule of the

Poison, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Act as amended. It was further contended that the English text should be accepted in the imposition of the punishment.

Held:

(1) It is evident from the two versions that while the Sinhala version contains the word "and" the English version contains the word "and or". The Sinhala text which uses the conjunction "and" makes it mandatory for the Trial Judge to order a period of imprisonment and a fine, thus leaving no discretion with the Trial Judge. The English test with the conjunction "and or" vests discretion with the Trial Judge.

(2) Article 23 of the Constitution - after the amendment by the 16th amendment which came to effect on 14.12.1988 provided that Sinhala and Tamil languages have been identified as the National languages. The Act No. 13 of 1984 had been enacted and published in the Sinhala and Tamil languages. There is no inconsistency to be seen in the said two texts which is in Sinhala and Tamil languages. The languages in the Sinhala and Tamil texts of Act No. 13 of 1984 are identical.

(3) The English translation does not contain the actual words stated in the Sinhala and Tamil texts. The English version is only a translation of the enactment, which is in Sinhala and Tamil.

Per H.N.J. Perera, J:

"What should prevail is the Sinhala and Tamil texts and not the English text which is a translation only. The sentence imposed is in accordance with the Sinhala and Tamil texts of the amending Act."

Held further:

Schedule at Part III of the amendment deals with the punishments in drug related offences. The Judge's discretion in sentencing therefore is limited to the limits that have been prescribed by the Legislature in this schedule.

APPEAL from the Judgment of the High Court of Tangalle.

Case Referred to :

1. Thiruchelvam Vs. Attorney General- 1995 2 SLR 138

Saliya Pieris with Varuna De Saram for the Accused - Appellant Ayesha Jinasena DSG for the Respondent.

November 17, 2014
H.N.J. PERERA, J.

The accused-appellant was indicted on two counts in the High Court of Tangalle for possessing and trafficking of a quantity less than 01 gram of heroin contrary to section 54 A(d) and 54A(c) of the Poisons, Opium & Dangerous Drugs Act No. 17 of 1929 amended by Act No. 13 of 1984.

Without proceeding to trial the accused -appellant tendered an unqualified plea o