Dissanayake v. QIC, Police Statiorr, Hanguranketa
DISSANAYAKE AND OTHERS
v.OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, POLICE STATION, HANGURANKETA
COURT OF APPEAL
S.N, SILVA, J. & W.N.D. PERERA. J.
C.A. No. 884/89M.C. KANDY B/27496/89NOVEMBER 16, 1989.
Bail – Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15, of 1979, Section 115.
The three suspects produced before the Magistrate on a report of having committedrape, were remanded by her for continuous periods totalling 8. weeks.
Section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 provides thatpersons in the situation of the suspects can be remanded for a total period of 15 daysand no more except where the offences are under sections 114, 191 or 296 of thePenal Code.
The words of section 115(2) admit only of one interpretation, that is, that the totalperiod of remand can only be for a period of 15 days where the investigation has notbeen completed’ except with regard to the three offences specified in the Section (ss.114, 191, 296 of the Penal Code).
Per S.N. Silva, J:
"The learned Additional Magistrate does not appear to have paid any consideration tothe legal basis on which it was sought to restrict the personal liberty of the suspectsfor successive periods. We have to note that this procedure is totally irregular.”
Sri Lanka Law Reports
11989) 2 Sri LR
Cases referred to:-
Attorney-General v. Sepala Ekanayake 1 Sri Kantha LB- 41
Pathirana v. O.I.C. Nittembuwa Police (1988) 1 Sri LR. 84.
APPLICATION lor bail and/or Revision ol the Order of the Additional Magistrate ofKandy.
Jayampathy Wickramaratne with Vijitha Wickremaralne, M.S.G. Suhaid and H.Withanachchi for petitioner.
November 16, 1989.
S.N. SILVA, J.
Mr. Jeyampathi Wickramaratne is heard in support ot the petitionand affidavit filed on 13.11.1989. By the said petition an application ismade on behalf of three suspects who are held in remand upon anorder issued by the learned Additional Magistrate of Kandy. Acertified copy of the proceedings in that case has been filed markedP1.
According to the certified copy (Pi) the three suspects were.-produced on 28.09.1989 upon a report of the Officer-In-Charge of theManguranketha Police. The allegation contained in the report is thaton 31.07.1989 the suspects committed rape on three persons whosenames appear in the report. On this report being filed, the AdditionalMagistrate remanded the suspects till 05.10.1989. On 05.10.89 thesuspects were further remanded till T9.10.89.
According to the Journal Entry of 17.10.89 counsel for the suspectshad made submissions that since the offence is one in respect ofwhich bail may be granted and no plaint has been filed the suspectsshould be released on bail. The learned Additional Magistrate doesnot,..appear to have considered this submission and had made anorder extending the period of remand up to 02.11.89.
■ -On 03.11.89 the suspects had been produced before the learnedAdditional Magistrate who made order remanding the suspects until
On 09.11.89 the suspects have been remanded upto
It is apparent from the certified copy of the proceedings that thelearned Additional Magistrate had remanded the suspects'for .a totalperiod of 08 weeks, without considering, at any stage, the legal basison which the orders were made.
Dissanayake v. OIC, Police StationHanguranketa (S.N. Silva, J.)
Mr. Wickramaratna submitted that where an investigation is notcompleted, the only provision on which a suspect can be remandedis section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979.This section clearly provides that in such situation the suspect “canbe remanded for a total period of 15 days and no more’’. This,however, is subject to an exception in respect of offences punishableunder section 114, 191 and 296 of the Penal Code. Counsel alsoreferred to two decisions of this Court, in the cases ofAttorney-General Vs. Sepala Ekanayaka (1) and Pathirana Vs. O.I.C.Nittambuwa Police (2). In both these cases this Court held that thewords referred to in Section 115(2) admit only of one interpretation -that is that the total period of remand can be only for a period of 15days, where the investigation has not been completed except withregard to the three offences specified in the Section.
The learned Additional Magistrate does not appear to have paidany consideration to the legal basis on which it was sought to restrictthe personal liberty Of the suspects for successive periods..
i We have to note that this procedure is totally irregular.
On the basis of the material placed before us, we make orderdirecting the release of the three suspect-petitioners namely D.M.S.Dissanayake, D.M. Sunil Dissanayake and A.G. Chandrasena (beingthe suspects remanded in M.C. Kandy case No. B/27496/89) on bailwith certified security fixed at Rs. 1000/- and with two suretiesacceptable to the Magistrate’s Court. The Registrar is directed tosend a certified copy of this order forthwith to the Magistrate’s Courtof Kandy.
W.N.D. PERERA, J. – I agreeBail ordered.
DISSANANYAKE AND OTHERS v. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, POLICE STATION, HANGURANKET