”Petitioner then states that he was assaulted, arrested and detained unlawfully by the 1st to 4th respondents. Accordingly, he alleges that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 12 (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2)3 were violated by the 1st to 4th Respondents. However, having heard the parties, this Court on 09.09.2011 granted leave to proceed, only with the application for the alleged violation of the rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution;”. read full judgment>>
Read MoreTag: illegal arrested
Asantha Aravinda vs. Atapattu and other police officers and others, SCFR Application No:26/2009
When the petitioner on 28.2.2008 riding his motor cycle with his friendThushara Chaminda on the pillion in Pitabeddara (name of a village) area, lorry driven by the 12th Respondent knocked his motor cycle and as a result of this accident both fell on the road with the motor cycle. The Petitioner however states that the 12th Respondent deliberately did the said act due to an argument that took place little prior to this incident between the two of them. After the said accident the 12th Respondent fled the scene. Thushara…
Read MoreEdward Sivalingam vs Sub Inspector Jayasekera, CID, Colombo 1. Officer-in-Charge, CID, Colombo 1. S.C. (F/R) No. 326/2008
The Petitioner in his Petition (dated 7th August 2008) stated that he was a resident of Killinochchi. When he was 13 years old he had been forcibly taken by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) but had been later released when his parents pleaded on his behalf but no details or specific 3 facts have been given with regards to the date or the release. On or about August 2006 the Petitioner had come from Killincochi to Vavuniya in order to travel to Colombo. On 04th August 2006, at…
Read MoreUspatabendige Buddhi Iwantha Gunasekera vs. . Sub Inspector Athukorala and others SC /FR 126 / 2008 SC /FR 126 / 2008
At the Police Station the 2nd Respondent had grabbed the 1st Petitioner by his hair and assaulted him asking in sinhala ‘badu deepan’. Thereafter the 2nd Respondent who was wearing shoes, had pulled the 1st Petitioner on to the ground and trampled the 1st Petitioner whilst kicking him. At that time, the 2nd Respondent had received a telephone call and had ordered the 1st Respondent to move the 1st Petitioner out of the room. Upon the said directions, the 1st Respondent had taken the 1st Petitioner to the Crime Division…
Read MoreK.H.G. Kushan Indika, vs Christy Leonard Ranjan Wijesekera, Officer-in-Charge,J.M. Karunaratne, Superintendent of Police, S.C. (FR) Application No. 129/2007
The petitioner, who was a Driver attached to the Sri Lanka State Plantation Corporation, had complained that his fundamental rights guaranteed in terms of Articles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution were violated by the 1st respondent for which this Court had granted leave to proceed. The petitioner’s complaint, as submitted by him, albeit brief, is as follows: The petitioner had to report for work usually at the Head Office of the Sri Lanka Plantation Corporation situated at Vauxhall Street, Colombo 02 and as he was from Niyagama, Talgaswatta, for…
Read MoreBandula Samarasekera, vs Vijitha Alwis, Officer-in-Charge, Chief Inspector Dehigama, Officer-in-Charge S.C. (FR) Application No. 107/2007,
The petitioner had been an employee at Brown and Company from 1979 – 1996 and thereafter was engaged in facilitating sales of vehicles. His wife is a retired teacher in English who was the Head of the English Division of the Advanced Technical Institute, Kandy. Their son Sahan, was 24 years of age at the time of this incident and was engaged in a mobile phone shop in Kandy. In 2005, the petitioner and his wife had learnt that Sahan was having an affair with a married woman. In the…
Read MorePKW Wijesinghe vs Upali Chandrasiri SC/Spl. 19/2007
On 15.1.2007, the petitioner was summoned to Wattegama Police Station on a complaint made by his niece regarding an allegation that had he obtained jewellery and a loan of Rs.100,000/- from the said complainant. The petitioner with his Attorney-at-Law Saman Ratnayake and one Jayawardena who is one of his friends went to the Police Station. At the Police Station Saman Ratnayake Attorney-at-Law explained to the 1st Respondent who conducted the inquiry that the complaint of the complainant was regarding a civil dispute and left the Police Station. Thereafter when the…
Read MoreRoshan Mahesh Ukwatta, vs Sub Inspector Marasinghe, Officer in Charge,Sagara Liyanage, Inspector of Police,The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, SC. FR Application No. 252/2006
When the case was mentioned in open Court on 09-11-2006 the 1st and 2nd respondents were absent and unrepresented and the State Counsel who represented the 4th Respondent ( Hon. the Attorney-General) had informed Court that the Attorney General was not appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents. Perusal of the docket reveals that on 25th August 2008 the Attorney-General had intimated to Court that on investigation reports filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents the Petitioner would be discharged in the criminal proceedings. However the petitioner elected to proceed…
Read MoreKUMARA VS. SILVA, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WELIPENNA AND OTHERS SC(FR) APPLICATION No. 121/2004.
Petitioner who claimed to be an artisan who agreed to paint the police emblem for the Independence Day Celebrations was taken to the Welipenna Police on 03.02.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. by the 1st respondent sub inspector in a jeep. He said that on the way he was assaulted by the 1 st respondent who also arrested one Don Shantha. He sustained injuries. At the Police Station the petitioner was taken to the 1st respondent’s room and assaulted with a wicket on his shoulders, neck, arms and knees over 80…
Read MoreNANDASENA VS CH AN D R AD ASA, O. I. C., PO LICE STATION, HINIDUMA AND OTHERS SC (SPL) APPLICATIO N No. 12/2004
T he p e titioner com plained that the 1st respondent O IC cam e near his boutique in a jeep; and after sum m oning him assaulted him on his face. He was then taken to the police station by other police officers. He com plained of infringem ent of A rticles 11 and 13(1) of the Constitution. He alleged that a part of his boutique had been dem olished. It was proved that on inform ation received by the 1st respondent over the telephone, from a Pradeshiya Sabha…
Read More