Kurunegala HC remand order on Johnston 'legally wrong': Romesh de Silva PC
Kurunegala Judge had said that it was the practice of the Court to do so. "Surely, that cannot be the law," said PC
Filing a revision application in the Court of Appeal, President's Counsel Romesh de Silva today contended that the order which was given by the Kurunegala High Court Judge remanding former Minister Johnston Fernando, pending the conclusion of the trial, was legally wrong.
President's Counsel was of the view that the alleged High Court order was wrong on the face of it as the same court had previously enlarged Mr. Johnston Fernando( accused -petitioner) twice before and after the indictments being served.
According to the President's Counsel, initially, the prosecution had filed a B report (B 735/15) against three suspects namely Johnston Fernando, Mohammed Shakeer and Nalin Fernando over an alleged purchase of certain goods from Laksathosa Limited violating the Public Property Act in Kurunegala Magistrate's Court.
Later, (May 6, 2015) Kurunegala Magistrate's Court refused to grant bail on the suspects as the law requires bail to be granted by a high court judge unless for exceptional circumstances.
Then the suspects filed revision bail application in Kurunegala High Court, where the suspects were released on conditional bail.(May 28, 2015)
Subsequently, the Attorney General on September 6, 2016, indicted the suspects in High Court under section 386 of the Penal Code and the section 5(1) of the Public Property Act.
Mr. De Silva said that his client at this point pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and subsequently on the same date he was released on bail again by the same High Court without any objection of the State (prosecution).
"After some time, the Kurunegala High Court Judge was transferred and the case was taken up before a new Judge. And when the trial of the case was finally fixed to be heard daily, the new Judge ordered the suspect to be remanded till the conclusion of the trial proceedings, even though nobody made any request as such to do so", said Mr. De Silva PC.
According to the President's Counsel, while remanding the suspect the Kurunegala Judge had said that it was the practice of the Court to do so. "Surely that cannot be the law which violates the Bail Act. What we have to understand is that bail is the rule remand is the exception" stated Mr. De Silva PC.
In the petition, the accused-petitioner had stated that the given High Court order which remanded the petitioner does not state specific reasons for such decision as it violates the Bail Act.
Petitioner has also stated that the Kurunegala High Court has no jurisdiction to remand the petitioner when the petitioner was granted bail twice from the same court before and after the indictments being served.
Mr. De Silva also contended that it was a matter of being free of wrongful deprivation as the High Court Judge had interfered with petitioner's personal liberty.
Therefore, the petitioner has sought in the petition from the Court of Appeal to issue notices to the respondent of the petition, to set aside the Kurunegala High Court order made remanding him pending the conclusion of the ongoing trial, and to make an interim order releasing him on bail.
The petitioner has stated the Attorney General as the respondent of the revision application.
The matter was taken up for inquiry before the Bench comprising Judge Achala Wengappully and Judge Janak de Silva.
Appearing for the Attorney General, Senior State Counsel Nayomi Wickramasekara informed the court that the respondent has already sought for sufficient time to respond as the Senior Deputy Solicitor General who handled the case was at the Kurunegala High Court.
Subsequently, the application was fixed for support tomorrow 1.30 p.m. by the Court of Appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment