PADMATILAKE (SGT) V. DIRECTOR GENERAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF BRIBERY/CORRUPTION

PADMATILAKE (SGT) V. DIRECTOR GENERAL,
COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS
OF BRIBERY/CORRUPTION

SUPREME COURT
DR. SHIRANI BANDARANAYAKE, J.
BALAPATABENDI, J.
EKANAYAKE, J.
SC 99/2007
SC SPL LA 80/2007
HC COLOMBO HCMCA 535/04
COLOMBO MC 42837/02
JANUARY 2nd,8th,2009

Bribery Act - No. 2 of 1965 as amended by Act No. 38 of 1974 Section 16 (b), Section 19 (c) -Assessment - Evaluation of evidence - Standard of proof in a bribery case? - Can the High Court cast the accused in cost when it dismisses the appeal?

The appellant was charged on 4 counts in the Magistrate's Court and was convicted of all charges framed under Section 16 (b) and Section 19 (c). The appeal made to the High Court was dismissed with costs.

The Supreme Court granted special leave.

Held

(1) Credibility of prosecution witnesses should be subject to judicial evaluation in totality and not isolated scrutiny by the Judge. When a witness makes inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses is unreliable and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the testimony of such witnesses.

(2) It is the paramount duty of the Court to consider the entire evidence of a witness brought on record in the examination in chief, cross examination and re-examination. The Courts must take an overall view of the evidence of each witness, careful examination of the evidence of Sumathipala - shows it lacked credibility.

(3) It is a cardinal principle that unreliable and unacceptable evidence cannot be rendered credible, simply. because there is some corroborative material. Sumathipala's evidence was totally based on hearsay, and a major portion of her testimony had been focused on an incident alleged to have taken place subsequent to, the date of the incident.

(4) The High Court erred by not stating on what items of evidence or what influenced Court to arrive at a finding. The High Court has totally failed to examine whether the Magistrate had evaluated and considered the evidence in the proper perspective. The High court has also failed to arrive at a finding with regard to the legality of Magistrate's consideration of evidence pertaining to subsequent incidents as corroborative material of the solicitation and acceptance which is the subject matter of the charges.

(5) The standard of proof required in respect of bribery charges is nothing but beyond reasonable doubt.

Per Chandra Ekanayake,J.

The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the witnesses in the defense and when the guilt is not established beyond reasonable doubt he is liable to be acquitted as a matter of sight and not as matter of grace or favour.

(6) Where the material witnesses make inconsistent statements in their evidence on material particulars, the evidence of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence, thus making the prosecution case highly doubtful.

Held Author

(7) When convicted accused's appeal is dismissed Courts do not cast him h costs. Right of appeal is undoubtedly a statutory right available to an accused-appellant against the conviction entered and sentence passed on him.

Case referred to:-

1. R. Amnda v. Commissioner General to Investigate Allegations of Bribery/Comcption - SC 108/2006 - (2008 - 1 BLR 11 - 136 at 138).

2. Gumhagan Singh v. State of Haryana - Cr LJ 1994 (2) 1710

APPEAL from the judgment of the High Court, Colombo (Bribery)

Rienzi Arsacularatne P.C. with Wasantha Batagoda and Dharshana Kuruppu for accused - appellants -petitioners.

Dilan Ratnayake SSC with Ms. Fernando SC for complainant-respondent- respondent.

Cur.adv.vult

July 30th,2009

CHANDRA EKANAYAKE,J.

    This is an appeal preferred by the accused-appellant- appellant from the judgment of the Provincial High Court of the Western

Click Here to Read the rest of this document