Bribery Commission appeals against S.B.'s acquittal
 

by Wasantha Ramanayake

The Bribery Commission yesterday appealed to the Court of Appeal against the order of the Colombo High Court acquitting former Samurdhi Minister S.B. Dissanayake of all the charges preferred against him in a bribery case.

The appeal sought to set aside the order of acquittal of the accused dated July 19 by the Colombo High Court and to direct the High Court to call upon the accused for his defence.

The Commission also sought an order directing that the trial be held before another Judge of the High Court.

The petitioner, the Director General of the Bribery Commission cited S.B. Dissanayake as the respondent.

The Bribery Commission had earlier indicted former Samurdhi Minister S.B. Dissanayake with his inability to account for his assets amounting to Rs. 48 million acquired during the period of March 31, 1995 to September 30, 2001.

The petitioner stated that the High Court Judge purporting to act in accordance with the section 200(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act acquitted the respondent of all charges preferred against him.

Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the Petitioner filed the instant application in the Court of Appeal on the basis that the trial judge had seriously erred in relation to questions of law as well as matters of fact.

As for the questions of law among other things, petitioner contended that the erroneous application of Wanigasekera's case, the misapprehension and misapplication of the Ellenborough's principle and the misunderstanding of the principles set out in the quoted passages from the Phipson's Law of Evidence had misled the trial judge on the principles of law relating to evidence applicable to at the present stage of the proceedings.

The petitioner stated that the trial judge accepted and given credit to the opinion of the prosecution witness resulting in the decision of the case being taken by a lay witness instead of by court. He stated that in the process the trial judge had accepted the evidence both in favour of the prosecution and the defence thus breaching the fundamental tenet of trial judging, causing prejudice to the prosecution.

The petitioner stated that it would have been in the best interest of the justices to have called for the defence of the accused to enable the prosecution to test the veracity of the contents of affidavits and documents submitted to the Commission. The best test of credibility and veracity of the contents of such affidavits would have been to subject the accused to cross examination.

The petitioner also stated that the trial Judge had erroneously referred to the Department of Bribery and Corruption and to the Bribery Commissioner, the institution and its functionary which operated over a decade ago under the repealed provisions of the Bribery Act.

The petitioner stated that the court had thus delivered its order and had expressed its uninformed view of the desired conduct of a Bribery Commissioner in total disregard and ignorance of the organisational structure of the Commission established by Act of 1994. The petitioner averred that the order revealed a serious flaw in the process of trial judging. He stated that for the very reason alone the order could not stand.

The Daily News understands that Dr. Ranjit Fernando is to be issued a "Fiat" to appear on behalf of the Commissioner.