1. The purpose of issuing process of Court is to obtain the appearance of a person in Court and not to secure his presence in any police station or the CID headquarters. Thus, process may issue in terms of section 124 of the CCRP Act to compel a suspect to attend Court for an identification parade, and to assist investigators by requiring the suspect to provide handwriting, finger prints, samples of hair, fingernails or blood for investigating a crime.
සරලව මේ කියන්නේ පුද්ගලයකුට මේ වගේ අධිකරණ නියෝගයක් නිකුත් කිරීමේ අරමුණ වෙන්නේ ඔහුට අධිකරණයේ පෙනී සිටීමට කීම මිසක් පොලිසියක හරි සීඅයිඩී මූලස්ථානයේ පෙනී ඉන්න කියලා නෙමෙයි ය කියලා. මෙතනදි ගරු ධීරරත්න විනිසුරුතුමා වැඩිදුරටත් කියනවා පුදගලයකුගේ නිදහසේ අයිතියට මැදිහත්වෙන වරෙන්තු නිකුත් කිරීම අධිකරණමය ක්‍රියාවක් නිසා චෝදකයකු නැත්නම් විමර්ශන නිලධාරියකු ඉල්ලපු පමණින්ම මහේස්ත්‍රාත්වරයා විසින් අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමේ වරෙන්තුවක් නිකුත් නොකළ යුතු බව (“Issuing a warrant is a judicial act involving the liberty of an individual and no warrant of arrest should be lightly issued by a Magistrate simply because a prosecutor or an investigator thinks it necessary.”).
2. Unless a warrant of arrest is issued for the failure to obey summons, recording of evidence is a sine qua non before issuing a warrant of arrest of a suspect whether investigations are completed and proceedings are instituted in the Magistrate’s Court under S. 136 (1) (b) of the CCRP Act or the investigations are incomplete and no proceedings are instituted in Court. The Magistrate must before issuing a warrant against the offender, record evidence on oath substantiating the allegation.
3. On the basis of the 1st respondent’s representations to the Chief Magistrate, the petitioner was arrested on the authority of the warrant and no other. If that warrant was otherwise legally valid, the 1st respondent could not have arrested the petitioner as the warrant was directed to SI Rodrigo, and SI Rodrigo had not endorsed the warrant to another peace officer as required by section 52 (3) of the CCRP Act; nor was there any justification for the 1st respondent to have arrested the petitioner in terms of section 32 (1) (b) of the Act, as he was not involved with the investigations of the alleged offences.
4. The defence that the 1st respondent was acting purely on the orders of his superior the 3rd respondent and that as a police officer he was bound to do so is untenable. The arrest under those circumstances was illegal.
5. The arrest and the detention of the petitioner in police custody were not in accordance with the law and the 1st and 3rd respondents violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Constitution.
I am of the view that the 1st and 3rd respondents have falsely stated that they got the approval of the 4th respondent to arrest the petitioner and further that he was informed of the arrest after the event. The British Statesman, Herbert Henry Asquith, once observed, that the War office kept three sets of figures; one to mislead the public, another to mislead the Cabinet and the third to mislead itself. Similarly, I would say it is quite probable that the CID kept three sets of facts on the issue of the arrest of the petitioner; one to mislead the Chief Magistrate, another to mislead the Supreme Court and the third to mislead itself.
