|
Ravi Karunanayake case:
AG files special application against Court of Appeal order
THE Attorney General has filed a Special Leave to Appeal Application
before the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal Order affirming the
Anticipatory Bail granted by the Fort Magistrate to UNP MP Ravi
Karunanayake while he was to be arrested in the course of investigations
into a case of criminal breach of Trust of Rs. 15.6 million when the
latter was a Government Minister.
The Petitioners in this special leave application are
Officer-in-Charge of the Anti Corruption Unit of the Police Headquarters
Crimes Division S.G.J. Gunasekera and ASP C. E. Widisinghe.
The matter stemmed from their investigations into the
offence of Criminal Breach of Trust of Rs. 15,675,000 in pursuance of
the Ministry of Trade and Consumer Affairs obtaining on lease a building
at No.234, Vauxhall Street, Colombo 2.
According to them it was revealed that Karunanayake was
concerned with the commission of Criminal Breach of Trust of Rs.
15,675,000 in terms of Section 5(1) of the Offence Against Public
Property Act, No. 12 of 1982 as amended.
They initially filed an application before the Court of
Appeal against an Order by the Fort Magistrate's Court granting
Karunanayake (Petitioner Respondent) anticipatory bail in terms of
Section 21 of the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997 as amended.
In their application before the Court of Appeal
Respondent petitioners interalia stated that the Magistrate erred in law
in failing to appreciate that the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997 has no
application in respect of offences that falls within the meaning of the
proviso of Section 8 of the Offences against the Public Property Act,
No. 12 of 1982.
They also claimed that the Magistrate erred in law
taking into account extraneous factors in interpreting the provisions of
the Bail Act, No. 12 of 1982. "The learned Magistrate erred in law in
failing to take into consideration the scope of application of the Act",
they said.
However the Court of Appeal delivering its Order held
interalia that the provisions of the Bail Act are applicable to a person
who is alleged to have committed or concerned in committing an offence
falling within the meaning ofthe proviso to Section 8(1) of the Offences
Against the Public Property Act.
The Petitioners claim that the said judgement was
contrary to law and that though the Court of Appeal held that Section
8(1) of the Offences Against Public Property Act provides a "condition"
for the release of a person at the time of investigation, misdirected
itself by holding that the said provision is not an "express provision"
for the granting of bail within the meaning of Section 3 of the Bail
Act. |
