SL Advocacy

"In order for an aggrieved person to exercise a right of  appeal under Section 16 of the Judicature Act, following criteria must be  satisfied. 1. There must be an order made by the High Court in a criminal case. 2. Leave of the Court of Appeal must first be obtained. 3. It must be an order in which the Attorney General has a right of  appeal." Ravi Karunanayake v. Attorney General CA (PHC) APN 66/2010 decided on 26.5.2010 Before : Sisira de Abrew J & Upaly Abeyrathne J Sisira de Abrew J. The accused petitioner and two others were indicted in the High  Court of Colombo under the provisions of the Exchange Control Act. When  the charges were read out to the accused, prior to pleading to charges,  learned counsel for the accused objected to the jurisdiction of court and  submitted that the High Court had, in terms of the provisions of the  Exchange Control Act, no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. The  learned High Court

In this case the complainant Respondent had testified on oath and the learned Magistrate being of the opinion that there was sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused issued summons on the accused petitioners appellants in terms of section 139 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act No: 15 of 1979. Derek Kelly & another v. Yasasiri Kasthuriarachchi   C.A. (PHC) Appeal No. 57/2008 decided on 7.9.2012 Before: W.R.L.Silva, J. &  H.N.J.Perera, J H.N.J. Perera, J. The Appellants have filed this appeal to set aside the order made by the learned High Court Judge of Colombo dated 28.03.2008 where the learned High Court Judge has held that he has no reasons to interfere with the decision made by the learned Magistrate of Fort and dismissed the said application for revision. The complainant Respondent instituted case No: 60390 in the Magistrates Court Fort on 25.2.2004 under section 136(1) (a) of the code of Criminal Procedure Act No: 15 of 1979 ag

Appellate and revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 154(P) (3) (b) of the Constitution. Wewalwalahewage Hemantha AriyaKumara v.   Kaluappu Kankanamalage Dona Bernadeth Yamuna Rani Karunarathne SC Spl LA No. 169/2013 decided on  26 .03.2014 Before : Marsoof, PC, J,  Hettige, PC, J &  Dep, PC J Priyasath Dep, PC., J. This is a Special Leave to appeal Application filed by Defendant-Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) to the Supreme Court seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Negombo exercising appellate jurisdiction in HC Negombo Case No. HCA 217/11. When the Special Leave to Appeal application was taken up for support, the Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent(hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) raised a preliminary objection stating that Petitioner cannot maintain this appeal in view of the fact that the Article 154(P) (6) con

This judgment is very useful for all lawyers, mainly for Criminal practitioners. From this judgment you can find how a judicial officer ( Magistrate ) may be involved in the violation of a fundamental right in the exercise of his duties.  Farook v. Raymond and others   (Reported as (1996) 1 Sri L.R. 217) SUPREME COURT. G. P S. DE SILVA C.J., AMERASINGHE J. AND RAMANATHAN J. S. C. APPLICATION No. 156/95. 20 JUNE, 1996. Fundamental Rights ‑ Constitution, Article 13 (1) & (2) ‑ Has the Court jurisdiction to entertain a petition alleging violation of fundamental rights arising from the order of a judicial officer? Can Magistrate order detention under the Customs Ordinance? Customs Ordinance, sections 126, 127 ‑Confiscation of passport ‑ Arrest and detention other than as authorized by law. Five matters arose for consideration: (1) Were the 1st and 2nd respondents ‑ Police Officers ‑ acting in accordance with procedure prescribed by law? (2) Was the detention of t