The Is’ to the 10th respondents were police officers attached to the Police Guard Room, Boralesgam uw a w hich com es u n d er the M aharagam a Police Station. On 04. 03. 1994, the petitioner w as arrested by the 1st and 2nd respondents for a traffic offence and taken to the Police G uard Room, Boralesgam uwa after using m uch force on him. W hilst in police custody, the 1st, 2nd, 4lh and 5th respondents assau lted him. He was assau lted with
a rubber hose w hilst the 3rd respondent, a S ub-Inspector of Police, stru ck him on his right ear. On the 3rd day after the arrest, the petitioner was adm itted to the Kalubowila Hospital un d er police custody  here he rem ained until 11. 03. 1994 when he w as taken over by Prison Officers on the O rder of the M agistrate, G angodawila and adm itted to the Prison Hospital. According to the discharge ticket of the Kalubowila Hospital, the petitioner had su stain ed contusions, fractures and perforations of both ear drum s. The O rder for the transfer from police custody to prison custody was made by the M agistrate on the application of the officer-in-charge, Maharagam a Police Station w hilst the petitioner was a t the Kalubowila Hospital. T h at order w hich is dated 06. 03. 1994 (a Sunday) states
“Suspect . . . Nihal present. Rem and until 16. 03. 94″.

supreme court were unable to find any provision of law granting sanction for a M agistrate to make such a rem and order w hich is capable of so insidiously eroding the liberty of the subject. (See Article 13(2) of the C onstitution and section 37 of th e Code of Crim inal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979). The seriousness of this m atter compels us to direct the Registrar of this C ourt to bring it to the notice of the C hairm an of the Judicial Service Com m ission for such action he deem s appropriate.

full judgement here

Social Sharing

Related posts