at page 40 the witness had stated as follows:

At the trial the accused-appellant had made a dock statementmore or less admitting the facts stated by the Prosecution witnesses,and taken up a defence that the soliciting and accepting of the saidmoney was 'bona fide' without any intention that it was solicited andaccepted as a bribe or gratification. The witness Nalin Perera wasinformed by him that the donation was for the construction of thecommunity center.
Don Lfyeris v Director-General of the Commission to investigate
Affeoations of Bribery and Corruption (Jaoath Balaoatabendi. J.)
The only ground of appeal urged by the Counsel for the accused-appellant was that the learned Trial Judge erred in law by coming toa conclusion that "however laudable the purpose for which the moneyis to be finally utilized/ and "what ever his intentions were with regardto the use of this money" an offence had been committed by a publicservant under section 22 of the Bribery Act if he solicits or accepts anygratification for performing any official act."
The contention of the Counsel for the accused-appellant was thatthe offence of bribery is not one of 'strict-liability' but requires the usualelements of any offence viz: the 'actus-reusf together with 'mense-rea'should be established together to complete the commission of suchan offence. The offence of bribery can only be committed by a personwho not only commits the ’actus-reus? but also does it with therequired1mens-rea' (corrupt intention).
Further he contended that the definition given for *bribery' inModern legal usage (2 edition) by Garner is: vThe corrupt payment,receipt, or solicitation of a private favour for official action of the bribe-taker (or bribe-giver). Also "a 'bribe' is a reward or favour given orpromised to a person in a position of trust in order that the person'sjudgment will be skewed of conduct corrupted in one's favour." Thus,he submitted that the learned High Court Judge had come to a findingthat section 22 of the Bribery Act contemplates a 'Strict liability* offenceand mere act or the *actus reus1 was sufficient enough to constitute anoffence under the section.
The contention of the Counsel for the Complainant-respondentwas that the interpretation given in the provisions of section 90 and90(c) of the Bribery Act constitutes the offence committed by theaccused-appellant. The witness Nalin Perera had stated that theaccused-appellant solicited a sum of Rs. 200,000/- and subsequentlybrought down to Rs. 100,000/- and accepted the same amount togrant an approval for the Building Plan; where he is not authorized bylaw or any other Regulations to solicit or to accept any money indischarge of an official act.
In support of her contention the Counsel cited the decision in thecase of Rupasinghe v Attorney-GeneraW.
Now I would like to examine the findings of the learned High CourtJudge in his judgment At the outset the learned High Court Judge
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2007] 2 Sri L.R
after analysis of the evidence in the case has posed a question; viz"Can a public servant solicit or accept any money from any personwho comes to get an official act done however laudable the purposefor which the money is to be finally utilized? Clear answer to thisquestion is 'No'. According to the section 22 of the Bribery Act,soliciting any gratification for performing any official act is an offence."
The learned High Court Judge finally had come to a correctconclusion on analysis of evidence that the accused-appellantsolicited a sum of Rs. 100,000/- from the witness (Nalin Perera) forperforming an official act, to wit: – the approval of the Building Plan,whatever his intentions were with regard to use of this money.
So it is clear from the findings in the Judgment that the learnedHigh Court Judge had dealt with the question of 'mense-rea'.
Thus I do not agree with the contention of the Counsel for theaccused-appellant, that the above mentioned findings were incorrectin law.
Further, I would like to mention the remark he had made in hisJudgment, which I fully endorse that "in terms of the Bribery Actsection 22 soliciting and accepting money by a public servant from aperson who comes to get an official act done as an inducement forperforming an official act, is a bribe. If not public officers could become collecting agents for various charities and other organizationsfrom the public who come to them to get official work done by them."
For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the findings ofthe learned High Court Judge in his Judgment were correct in law andon facts.
BASNAYAKE – I agree.
Appeal is dismissed.