The Court of Appeal this week set aside a five-year suspended sentence imposed on a school cashier who was found guilty of misappropriating Rs. 315,715.46, and imposed a three-year Rigorous Imprisonment (RI). A two-member bench comprising Justices S. Devika de L. Tennekoon and S. Thurairaja set aside the judgement of the Badulla High Court (HC) [...]

News

Appeal Court sets aside High Court ruling as bad in Law

View(s):

The Court of Appeal this week set aside a five-year suspended sentence imposed on a school cashier who was found guilty of misappropriating Rs. 315,715.46, and imposed a three-year Rigorous Imprisonment (RI).

A two-member bench comprising Justices S. Devika de L. Tennekoon and S. Thurairaja set aside the judgement of the Badulla High Court (HC) saying, any sentence for a period of more than two years cannot be suspended.

The cashier, who worked at the St. Thomas’ College, Bandarawela from July 1988 to December 1998, was indicted before the Badulla HC for Criminal Breach of Trust punishable under Section 391 of the Penal Code. The indictment was served on August 22, 2007, and the trial began on October 23, 2012. He was accused of misappropriating the school funds amounting to Rs. 315,715.46.

During the trial, the Defence Counsel had made an application that the accused wished to withdraw his earlier plea of “not guilty”, and plead “guilty” to the charge.

After both counsel made submissions, the trial judge accepted the plea and convicted the accused and imposed a Rs 5,000-fine or, in default, four months RI and additionally, five years RI suspended for five years.

However, the Attorney General referred the case to the Court of Appeal, submitting that the sentence imposed was illegal. The Appeal Court said that, as the accused had pleaded guilty, there was no complaint against the conviction. The only complaint by the State is that the suspension of the sentence was illegal.

“Reading the entire provisions of the law, it is crystal clear that any sentence for a period of more than two years cannot be suspended. In the present case, the trial judge had imposed a sentence of five years and suspended the same for five years, which is bad in law,” the Appeal Court said.
It said that, sending the case back to the HC to impose an appropriate sentence would further delay the case and hence, imposed three years RI and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default, three months simple imprisonment and additionally. The court directed the accused to pay back the misappropriated money .

Deputy Solicitor General Dileepa Peiris appeared for the AG while Attorney-at-Law Udaya Bandara appeared for the defendant.

Share This Post

DeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspaceRSS

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.