|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 23 November 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
by Wasantha Ramanayake The Court of Appeal reserved the judgement in the Revision Application seeking to set aside the anticipatory bail granted to former minister Ravi Karunanayake for December 16. The Bench comprised Justices Saleem Marsoof PC and S. Sri Skandarajah. Deputy Solicitor General Priyasad Dep for the appellants maintained that the Bail Act would not apply to any offence coming under the Public Property Act. He argued that bail for such offence should be considered in terms of the Proviso to the Section 8 of the Act and not in terms of the Bail Act. He also maintained that the Magistrate's Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. The DSG also submitted that the appellants bail application was bad in law. President's Counsel K.N. Choksy for Karunanayake submitted that since any offence committed under the Public Property Act was non-bailable, it was proper for the petitioner make an application under the Bail Act and the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. Respondents-appellants Ruwan Gunasekera, the OIC of Anti Corruption Unit attached to the Crime Division of the Police Headquarters and ASP C.E. Weedisinghe of the same unit cited Ravi Karunanayake as the petitioner-respondent. They sought an order refusing anticipatory bail granted to Ravi Karunanayake on July 6. Respondents-appellants stated that they started investigations into the complaint made by an investigation officer attached to the Presidents Anti Corruption Unit, on May 24. They stated that they had on several occasions questioned Karunanayake in respect of alleged misappropriation of Rs. 15,675,000 of state funds over a lease agreement to rent out a building for the CWE at the Vauxhall Street. Appellants stated that they were prevented by some of Karunanayake's former ministerial friends from arresting him to proceed with the investigations. Later, the Karunanayake made an application seeking anticipatory bail. The Fort Magistrate granted anticipatory bail to Karunanayake on July 6. They alleged that the order of the Magistrate was illegal and ultravirus of the Bail Act. They stated that the issue involved the interpretation of the Bail Act of 1997 read with the provisions of the Public Property Act and involved the question of public importance. DSG Priyasad Dep with Senior State Counsel Buvaneka Aluvihare appeared for the appellants. K.N. Choksy PC with Kalinga Indatissa instructed by G.G. Arulpragasam appeared for Ravi Karunanayake. The Judgment was reserved for December 16. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
