017-SLLR-SLLR-1983-2-SAMARAWICKREMA-V.-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf
162
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1983] 2 Sri L. R.
SAMARAWICKREMA
V.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
SUPREME COURT
WANASUNDERA. J.. SOZA. J.. AND RANASINGHE. J.
S.C. APPEAL NO. 20/82. S.C. SPECIAL LEAVE APPLICATION NO 27/82.
C. A. APPLICATION (L.A/S.C. NO. 94/81).
C.A. (S.C.) NO. 37/78.
D C. COLOMBO B/505.
JANUARY 17. 1983.
Rules of the Supreme Court — Effect of non-compliance
A preliminary objection was made by the Senior State Counsel that the Accused-Appellant has not complied with Rule 35 (c) of the Supreme Court Rules. 1978.
Held —
It is imperative to comply with these rules.
APPEAL from the District Court of Colombo.
E.R.S.R. Coomaraswamy with R. K. S. Suresh Chandra and N. Herat forAccused-Appellant.
G. L. M. de Silva. Senior State Counsel for Attorney General.
Cur.adv. vult
January 17. 1983WANASUNDERA. J.
Senior State Counsel has taken a preliminary objection to thehearing to this appeal and states that the Accused-Appellant hasnot compjied with the provisions of Rule 35(c) of the SupremeCourt Rules 1978.
Rule 35(c) requires the Appellant, within 14 days of the grant ofspecial leave, to lodge his written submissions and forthwith givenotice thereof to each respondent serving on him a copy of thesubmission.
sc
Samarawickrema v. Attorney-General(Wanasundera, J.)
163
Although Counsel for the Appellant stated that a copy of thewritten submissions had been handed over at the office of theAttorney-General. Senior State Counsel informs us that there isno record of such receipt. Mr. Coomaraswamy conceded that hehas no proof of such service. Apart from this he has shown noother excuse for the non-compliance with this regulation.
These provisions have been consistantly held by this Court asbeing imperative. Considering all the circumstances of this casewe would dismiss this appeal.
SOZA, J. — I agreeRANASINGHE, J. — I agreeAppeal dismissed