GALLELAWBLOGGER

  Sri Lankan law on applications to quash indictments or the Attorney General’s decision to indict , arranged as a set of principles with the authorities that support each principle.  APPLICATIONS TO QUASH INDICTMENTS IN SRI LANKA Law, principles and precedents 1. The starting point: the Attorney General’s power to indict The Attorney General’s power to present indictments is a statutory prosecutorial power. In the ordinary criminal process, once material is placed before the Attorney General, he may decide whether to prosecute, whether to file an indictment, what charges should be framed, and in what court the accused should be tried. The modern cases usually begin with section 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act , which empowers the Attorney General to present indictments. In Fakhir v. Attorney General , the Court of Appeal expressly treated the question as whether the Attorney General’s power to forward an indictment is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 140 ...

Authorities on applications seeking to quash indictments , quash the Attorney General’s decision to indict , or restrain/prohibit an indictment , together with the principles.  CASES ON APPLICATIONS TO QUASH INDICTMENTS IN SRI LANKA A. Leading reported authorities 1. Victor Ivan v. Sarath N. Silva, Attorney General and Another [1998] 1 Sri LR 340 This is the foundational Sri Lankan authority on reviewability of the Attorney General’s prosecutorial discretion. The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General’s discretion to file or not file an indictment is not absolute, unfettered or unreviewable . It is a public power held in trust and must be exercised for the purpose for which it was conferred. However, the Court will not lightly interfere. Intervention is possible where the decision is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, made for an improper purpose, or based on no objective material. This case is repeatedly relied upon in later indictment challenge cases. In Fakhir v. Attorney G...

 Case Title: Thajudeen v. Sri Lanka Tea Board and Another Case Number: CA APPLICATION 1596/77 Decided Date: 1981-03-31 Source: Sri Lanka Law Reports Book Reference: 1981 02 SLR 471 Nature: Dispute over tea subsidy payment Issues: Legal right to performance of duty, statutory duty, dispute on facts, payment of money from public funds, suppression of material facts, false entries in registers, proof of purchases, primary questions of fact Summary: In the case between Thajudeen (registered manufacturer at Amugala Tea Factory) and the Sri Lanka Tea Board (with another public entity), the court addressed whether a writ of mandamus could be granted concerning the payment of a subsidy under a Guaranteed Minimum Price Scheme for Green Tea Leaf when underlying facts were in significant dispute. It was held that mandamus, as a discretionary and extraordinary remedy, should not be issued where key factual matters—such as records of tea leaf purchases and factory production—are contested, and ...

  Arguments Scrutiny of Attorney-General’s Discretionary Powers The argument advanced is that the Attorney-General’s power to grant or refuse sanction for prosecution in cases of criminal defamation is a discretionary power, but it must operate within constitutional limits. The petitioner claimed that this discretion, when exercised in a manner that infringes upon fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech, should be open to judicial review under Article 126. The argument stressed the necessity for sufficient evidence, proper investigation, and adherence to statutory and constitutional frameworks, suggesting that unchecked prosecutorial discretion could lead to violations of constitutional protections. Limitation on Judicial Intervention Without Prima Facie Violation The main counterargument is that although prosecutorial discretion is broadly acknowledged, judicial intervention is warranted only in circumstances where there is a clear prima facie case of infringement of fu...

 Case Title: Victor Ivon v. Sarath, N., Silva, Attorney General and Others Case Number: SC APPLICATION NO. 89/98 Decided Date: 1998-04-03 Source: Sri Lanka Law Reports Book Reference: 1998 01 SLR 340 Nature: Alleged abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Issues: Review of the Attorney-General's power to file (or not file) an indictment for criminal defamation, Pendency of proceedings in another court, Prima facie case for review, Existence of contract, Breach of contract Summary: The case between Victor Ivon (petitioner) and Sarath N. Silva, Attorney-General and another (respondents), addressed the reviewability of the Attorney-General’s discretionary power to file indictments for criminal defamation in the context of constitutional rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression. It was determined that while the Attorney-General’s decision to grant or refuse sanction to prosecute is a broad discretionary power, this power must be exercised within constitutional boundaries and is...