{"id":210,"date":"2020-03-18T11:20:24","date_gmt":"2020-03-18T11:20:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/?page_id=210"},"modified":"2020-03-18T11:21:49","modified_gmt":"2020-03-18T11:21:49","slug":"abeywickrema-v-gunaratna-and-three-others","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/?page_id=210","title":{"rendered":"Abeywickrema v. Gunaratna and three others"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Case Reference\/File No<\/strong> <\/td>[1997] 3 SriLR 225 <\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Case Name<\/strong> <\/td>Abeywickrema v. Gunaratna and three others <\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Court <\/strong> <\/td>Supreme Court <\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Date of judgement<\/strong> <\/td>9th<\/sup> Sep 1997 <\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
Judges<\/strong> <\/td>G.P. S. De Silva CJ
Ananda Coomaraswamy J
Dr Shirani Bandaranayake J <\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Parties<\/strong> <\/td>Petitioner<\/strong>
Abeywickrema

Vs

Respondent<\/strong>
Chief Inspector of the Police Station, Maradana <\/td><\/tr>
Keywords<\/strong> <\/td>Articles 11, 13(1) \u2013 legal arrest and degrading treatment \u2013 Section 32(1)b of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act <\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Head note<\/strong> <\/td>\n  \n <\/td><\/tr>
\n Brief facts<\/strong>\n <\/td>The petitioner, a three-wheeler driver, who took a passenger on a hire waited at the destination hotel to be paid. As the passenger didn\u2019t return, he went into the hotel, saw the passenger is in an argument with another person. Then, some police officers came and took the passenger to the police station and the petitioner\u2019s three-wheeler was used again. While the petitioner was waiting outside to be paid, he was called in and was assaulted, was taken to AJMO and was locked up in a cell until the next day when he was released on police bail.

The Court referred to the earlier decision Thadchanamoorthi v. Attorney-General <\/em>that an \u2018aggravated form of treatment or punishment\u2019 could satisfy the requirements of Article 11 and with additional consideration on the circumstances of the case held that the respondents have violated the rights of the petitioner entrenched under Article 11 of the Constitution. Considering the legality of the arrest and detention of the petitioner within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the Constitution and Section 32 (1) b of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, basis the Court held that such arrest and detention has infringe amounted to the petitioner\u2019s fundamental rights under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution. <\/td><\/tr>
Judicial Precedence<\/strong> <\/td>The arrest has to be lawful and for it to be lawful, the arrest should be carried out according to the procedure laid down by law. <\/td><\/tr>
Legislation Title<\/strong> <\/td>The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka; Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979 <\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Area<\/strong> <\/td>Articles 11, 13(1) of the Constitution; Section 32(1)b of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act <\/strong> <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Download Case File<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Reference\/File No [1997] 3 SriLR 225 Case Name Abeywickrema v. Gunaratna and three others Court Supreme Court Date of judgement 9th Sep 1997 Judges G.P. S. De Silva CJ Ananda Coomaraswamy J Dr Shirani Bandaranayake J Parties Petitioner Abeywickrema Vs Respondent Chief Inspector of the Police Station, Maradana Keywords Articles 11, 13(1) \u2013 legal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":164,"featured_media":0,"parent":197,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-210","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/164"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=210"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":212,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/210\/revisions\/212"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}