Yoosuf v Attorney-General
ATTORNEY-GENERALCOURT OF APPEALFERNANDO, J.EDIRISURIYA, J.
CA PHC (APN) 64/2002
C. 139/93DECEMBER 4, 2002JANUARY 7, 24, 2003
Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance – Amended by Act, No. 13of 1954 – S. 52(b), and 54(a), (c), (d) – Code of Criminal Procedure – S. 333(3)- Granting of Bail by Court of Appeal – After conviction pending appeal – Court
The accused-appellant moved the Court of Appeal for bail. It was contendedthat section 83 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance givesthe power to release on bail only persons suspected or accused of an offenceunder section 54A, section 54B and the Ordinance is silent as regard to bail inrespect of convicted persons.
i) In the absence of specific provisions taking away the jurisdiction of theHigh Court to grant bail in respect of persons convicted under section 54Aand section 54B, section 333(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure wouldapply and hence the High Court has the jurisdiction to consider applica-tions for bail pending appeal in respect of an appellant convicted of the saidoffence.
APPLICATION for Bail pending appeal.
Mohan Peiris for petitioner.
Ms Anoopa de Silva S.C., for respondent.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[20031 3 Sri L.R
April 3, 2003
RAJA FERNANDO, J.This is an application for bail pending appeal. The accused-petitioner was charged before the High Court of Negombo on fourcounts:
Importation of 34.6 gr. of Heroin
Importation of 13.8 gr. of Heroin
Possession of 34.8 gr. of Heroin
Possession of 13.8 gr. of Heroin
under section 54(A) (c) and (d) of the Poisons, Opium andDangerous Drugs Ordinance, as amended by Act, No. 13 of 1954.
After trial the accused-petitioner was convicted of all chargesby the High Court Judge and sentenced to life imprisonment oneach of the charges on 5.4.2002.
Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence theaccused-petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Court ofAppeal.
It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that at thetrial inadmissible evidence was permitted to be led and that thetrial was rife with infirmities and misdirections.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted to court thatthis court should reject this application as there is no avermentthat the accused-appellant has made an application for bail to theHigh Court and it has been refused by the High Court Judge.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present applica-tion to the Court of Appeal is not to revise the order of the learnedHigh Court Judge refusing bail pending appeal but a direct appli-cation made to this Court to grant bail to the accused-appellantpending appeal.
It is the position of the counsel for the petitioner that in termsof section 83 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous DrugsOrdinance the High Court has jurisdiction to release on bail onlypersons suspected or accused of an offence under section 54 A
Yoosuf v Attorney-General
or 54 B of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
The said Ordinance is silent with regard to bail in respect of con-victed persons.
However it is our view that in the absence of specific provi-sions taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail inrespect of persons convicted under section 54A or 52B of thePoisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance section 333(3)of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply and hence the HighCourt has the jurisdiction to consider application for bail pending 40appeal in respect of an appellant convicted of such offence.
We uphold the objection of the respondent that the accused-appellant in this case should have made his application for bailpending appeal before the High Court.
On this ground alone this application must fail.
Where specific provision is made in any statute to meet a sit-uation this Court will not exercise its inherent/revisionary jurisdic-tion unless on exceptional grounds.
We do not see such exceptional grounds for this petitioner tohave by-passed the High Court and come to the Court of Appeal 50seeking bail in this application.
The application is accordingly refused.
EDIRISURIYA, J.I agree.
YOOSUF v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL