News
|
||||
No
case aginst S.B. Dissanayake, says judge In very strong language the judge advised the Bribery Commission to exercise greater vigilance when it decided to commence a prosecution. Mr. Dissanayake was indicted under section 23(A) 3 of the Bribery Act claiming that his expenditure over income was in excess of approximately Rs. 28 million in building his house at Hanguranketa and that these monies were obtained in the form of bribes during a period beginning March 31, 1955 to September 30, 2005. Referring to lack of evidence the judge said “It is quite astounding that with such an absence of evidence against the accused in hand, the Bribery Commissioner had nonetheless made an informed decision to commence this prosecution.” It is apparent that the Commissioner had failed in his obligation to make an informed decision to prosecute as required under Section 23 A (4) of the Act, the judge noted. “It must be said at once that the social consequences that such a charge brings to a person however high or low he may be in society, could be quite serious and somewhat incalculable. Such a social stigma can not be erased away by a mere acquittal of an accused. The fervent hope of this court is that the Bribery Commissioner in future might pay greater attention to the findings of his own investigators before rushing to embark on prosecutions. Above all such hasty decisions do deplete the public coffers at this moment of needed austerity”, the judge said. “It is my view that according to the findings which I have made both of law and fact the commission had failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused that there were unknown income and receipts not from legitimate sources coming under Section 23 A of the Act. If there has not been any proof as to the existence of any sources of income unknown to the prosecution after investigation then the accused cannot be asked to submit a defence on his behalf, for there is no case against him to defend. I therefore do not call for the defence and I order the acquittal of the accused from all charges. I have
made some observations regarding the role played by the Bribery
Commissioner to exercise greater vigilance when in the future he
may decide to commence prosecution. I have mentioned the social
opprobrium that may result from a prosecution under the Bribery
Act, and the resulting stigma which may stay on long after this
case has been concluded”, the judge noted. Mr.
Chandrapala said that the affidavit given to the Bribery Commissioner
by the accused had detailed all incomes, expenditures and all holdings.
He said that certain amounts that were declared had been deleted by the Bribery Commission. He said that his findings which were submitted to the Bribery Commission was that the income of the accused totalling Rs 54 million was more than his expenditure of Rs 30 million, which is an excess of Rs 24 million. Therefore the witness came to the conclusion that there was no evidence disclosed by his investigations to warrant a charge to be made under 23 A (3) of the Bribery Act. The court noted that in the declaration of assets and liabilities by Mr. Dissanayake for the period ending March 31, 1997, he had declared that Rs 1.5 million was deposited in the Union Bank in April 1997 and that the money was received by way of a gift from his father. The chief investigating officer had informed court he was satisfied that the donor was a person of means who had the capacity to make the gift. Accordingly court was informed that the sum of Rs 1.5 million fell into a category of ‘known income’. On the statement of accounts of share transactions of Mr. Dissanayake from March 31, 1995 to September 2001 amounting to Rs 894,143.34 also the investigating officer said they were ‘known income’. On
the bank statements from the People’s Bank with regard to
two loans obtained by Mr Dissanayake amounting to Rs 2 million the
court was told that Rs 776,186.42 was repaid and that was also ‘known
income’. Among the other income classified as ‘known income’ were the immovable properties amounting to Rs 500,000. Investigations found that the transaction from the sale of the Pajero jeep (64-8120) for Rs. 3 million was genuine. The court was also told that that the Rs. 3 million was included in the bank statement of Rs. 7,550,500.50 which is stated as cash in hand and classified as ‘known income’. The
Bribery Commission also investigated the house of Mr. Dissanayake
constructed at Haguranketa. The court was told that a total of Rs.
4,629,190 was taken as ‘known income’ after statements
from the architect, hardware dealer and timber dealer gave statements
saying that the deal was genuine. The
documents which were relevant for this case which were in the custody
of the Commission was not produced by it but they were made available
by the defence. The investigating officer said the report he submitted
was suppressed and was not heard of later. He said that after his
investigation he submitted a report that the monies fell into the
category of ‘known income’ and that there was no case
against the accused Mr. Dissanayake. Ananda
Wijesekera P.C., Dulinda Weerasuriya and Sandhana Perera instructed
by Mrs.Gowry Shankary Thavarasha appeared for S.B. Disssanayake.
|
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
