FAIZ V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION NO. 89/91

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube

On 26 April 1991 about 9.30 a.m. the petitioner along with 4 game guards had
arrested several persons who had been detected illicitly felling timber in the
Minneriya – Giritale Native Reserve and taken into custody, a hand tractor and
some carts loaded with logged timber and was bringing them along when the 6th
respondent C. S. Sooriyaratchi, a Member of Parliament for the Polonnaruwa
District came travelling in a jeep and intercepted the petitioner at a place called
Deke Ela and wanted the men released. The petitioner said he was only doing his
duty and suggested that the 6th respondent speak to the Assistant Director. The
6th respondent left the place in a huff. In the jeep the petitioner identified the 7th
respondent Keerthiratne who was a Provincial Councillor of the North Central
Provincial Council and several others. The petitioner proceeded a little further and
when he was approaching the water tank at Deke Ela, he saw the same jeep
halted at a distance and several persons standing on the road, When the hand
tractor which was at the vanguard of the procession reached this spot the
persons standing near the 6th respondent’s jeep, surrounded the tractor and
stopped it. The petitioner had his official knife issued to him by his Department
tucked in his belt and an iron rod for his protection. The 6th respondent grabbed
the iron rod and hit the petitioner with it several times. The petitioner suffered
incised injuries in the region of his left eyebrow and on the left shoulder. The 7th
respondent also attacked him joined by the other persons in the crowd. The 6th
respondent then ordered the suspects whom petitioner had arrested to take the
hand tractor and carts and escape.

There is no material in the present application upon which to hold
that the petitioner had been detained*in police custody beyond the
period allowed by law prior to his being produced before the
Magistrate.  supreme court would therefore hold that there has been no violation of
Article 13(2) of the Constitution.

full judgement here

Social Sharing

Related posts