011-SLLR-SLLR-2009-V-1-DABARE-vs-REPUBLIC-OF-SRI-LANKA.pdf
92
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2009] 1 SRI LR.
DABARE
vsREPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
COURT OF APPEALSISIRA DE ABREW. JABEYRATNE. JCA 111/2006HC COLOMBO 231/99MAY 04, 2009
Criminal Procedure Code – Section 203 – Failure to comply – Does itaffect the conviction? – Provisions are they mandatory? – Duty of trialJudge to deliver judgment?
The appellant was convicted for being in possession of heroin. The casewas concluded on 7.6.2006, judgment was put off for 1.8.2006, but aftertwo postponements judgment was delivered on 30.11.2006. The appellantcontended that the trial Judge failed to comply with Section 203.
Held:
The provisions of Section 203 are directory and not mandatory. This isa procedural obligation that has been imposed upon the Court and itsnon compliance would not affect the individuals rights unless such noncompliance occasions a failure of justice.
Per Sisira de Abrew. J.
“Courts below cannot use this judgment as an authority to refrainfrom delivering the judgments within the time period in Section 203,one should not forget that after the dose of the defence case, theaccused is generally remanded till the delivery of judgment. Thuswhen the judgment reserved is put off without reasons the accusedwould continue to be in the custody of remand without reasons. Itis the duty of the trial judge to deliver his judgment within the timeperiod stipulated in Section 203 – failure to comply with Section 203or postponing judgments with out reasonable grounds would lead toerosion of public confidence in the judicial system and would lead tolaws delay”.
CA
Dabare vs. Republic of Sri Lanka(Sisira De Abrew, J.)
93
APPEAL from the judgment of the High Court, Colombo.
Case referred to:*
Anura Shantha Silva vs. A. G. 1999 1 Sri LR 299
Dr. Ranjith Fernando fpr accused-appellantRohantha Abeysuriya DSG for Attorney General
cur.adv.vult
June 5, 2009SISIRA DE ABREW J.
The accused appellant in this case was convicted forbeing in possession of 25.7 grams of heroin. The learnedtrial Judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. Thisappeal is against the said conviction and the sentence.
The only ground urged by the learned counsel for theappellant is that the learned trial Judge failed to comply withsection 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). The casewas concluded on 7.6.2006 and the judgment was put off for1.8.2006. The case was not called on 1.8.2006. On 29.9.2006and 10.10.2006 the case was called but the judgment wasnot delivered. The learned trial Judge delivered the judgmenton 30.11.2006. It is therefore clear that the judgment wasnot delivered within the period stipulated in Section 203 ofthe CPC.
The important question that must be decided is whetherthe failure to comply with Section 203 of the CPC would af-fect the conviction. In Anura Shantha Silva vs A.Ol) HisLordship Justice De Silva held: “The provisions of Section203 of the Code are directory and not mandatory.This is a procedural obligation that has been imposed uponthe Court and its non compliance would not affect theindividual’s rights unless such non compliance occasions afailure of justice.”
94
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2009] 1 SRI LR.
According to the facts of this case when IP Liyanageattached to the Police Narcotic Bureau arrested the appellant,who was having a parcel containing heroin, when he cameout of his house. His evidence was corroborated by PSSenarathne. Learned Counsel did not challenge the evidenceof the prosecution. I have gone through the evidence of thecase and am of the opinion that the case has been provedbeyond reasonable doubt. When the case has been provedbeyond reasonable doubt, failure to comply with Section 203of the CPC would not affect the conviction. I therefore holdthat non compliance of Section 203 has not occasioned afailure of justice. I would like to state here that the courtsbelow cannot use this judgment as an authority to refrain fromdelivering their judgments within the time period specified inSection 203 of the CPC. One should not forget that after theclose of the defence case the accused is generally remandedtill the delivery of the judgment. Thus when the judgmentreserved is put off without stating reasons, the accused wouldcontinue to be in the custody of remand without reasons. It isthe duty of the trial judge to deliver his judgment within thetime period stipulated in Section 203 of the CPC. If he can’tdo so, he must state his reasons for his inability and shoulddeliver it within a reasonable time. The superior Court canthen examine the reasons and decide whether his inability isjustified or not. Failure to comply with Section 203 of the CPCor postponing judgments without reasonable grounds wouldlead to erosion of public confidence in the judicial system andalso would lead to laws delay.
As I pointed out earlier, non compliance of Section 203 oftheCPC in the instant case has not occasioned a failure of justice.For the aforementioned reasons, I upholding the convictionand the sentence of the accused appellant, dismiss thisappeal.
ABEYRATHNE, J. -1 agree.
Appeal dismissed.