Sirisena v. Republic of Sri Lanka
(Abdul Cader, J.)
physical recording of evidence was over. The Statesubmitted that the law contemplated witnesses being calledeven during the addresses and therefore the twenty-fourhours must start from the termination of the addresses. Ifevidence be called during the addresses I would think twenty-four hours will run from the time that evidence: is over.There was no other submission made on behalf of the State.
“ In the Sinhala version of the Administration of JusticeLaw sec. 186(2) reads :—

The words used are
These words used cannot include the addresses as Iunderstand the language. The meaning of the words in bothlanguages is clear.
Where the meaning of the words of a statute is plain,nothing can be done but to obey it. Therefore sec- 186(2)provides that the verdict should be recorded within 24 hoursof the conclusion of the evidence. To give any other meaningis to ignore the words and legislate, the office of the Judgeis “ Jus dicere ” and not “ Jus dare. ” It is indeed a matterfor the legislature whether this section should be amendedand in what manner. ”
In addition to the reason given by Wijesundera, J. viz:— theordeal an accused has to undergo in waiting for a verdict,I would like to add the further reason that it is absolutelyfundamental that a Judge should record a verdict when thedemeanour of the witnesses and the evidence itself is fresh inhis mind.
In the result, we hold that there has been clear non-compliancewith section 186 (2). Therefore, we set aside the convictionand sentence and direct that a fresh trial be had before adifferent Judge.
RATWATTE, J.—I agree.
Re-trial ordered.
G G. Ponnambalam (Jnr.),Attorney-at-Law.