The Colombo Chief High Court Judge, Manjula Karunaratne, emphasized that the date on which an offence is considered to have been detected is not the date on which a complaint regarding the incident was made. He stated that the relevant date should be the day on which the offence is revealed following an investigation conducted by the investigating officer.
This observation was made when a petition was taken up, seeking a revision of an order issued by the Maligakanda Magistrate. The order had summoned the directors of Asiri Hospital to court for the reading of charges in a case filed against the hospital and its directors for allegedly selling medicine to an inpatient at an inflated price. The petition argued that the case had been filed after the lapse of the prescribed time period and therefore could not be maintained before the Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court.
The petition further stated that despite preliminary objections raised regarding the time bar and the inability to proceed with the case in the Magistrate’s Court, those objections had been rejected. Accordingly, the petitioners—Asiri Hospital and several of its directors—filed this revision application, naming the National Medicines Regulatory Authority and the aggrieved party, Sanath Kumara Atukorala, as respondents.
During the hearing, Attorney-at-Law Jeevantha Jayatilaka, appearing for the petitioner hospital and its directors, informed the court that several previous petitions had been filed in other courts challenging both the order of Acting Magistrate Himali Ekanayake, who had imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000, and a subsequent order by former Chief Magistrate Lochani Abeywickrama Weerasinghe, which held that the earlier order was erroneous. He also stated that further legal action had been taken to prevent the reopening of the case.
He argued that when the matter was taken up before the Magistrate’s Court, their preliminary objections regarding the time bar and jurisdiction were rejected, leading to the summoning of his clients for the reading of charges. He further pointed out that the relevant law clearly states that legal action must be instituted within three months from the date the offence is detected.
At this point, Judge Karunaratne questioned what constitutes the date of detection of an offence. In response, Attorney Jayatilaka stated that it should be considered the date on which a complaint regarding the incident is made to a relevant institution, and that legal action must be initiated within three months from that date.
However, Senior State Counsel Himali Jayanetti argued that the date of detection of an offence is not the date on which a complaint is made to a government institution. Instead, it is the date on which the investigating officer, after conducting an inquiry based on the complaint, determines that an offence has been committed. She stated that, according to the law, legal proceedings must be initiated within three months from that date.
In this case, she explained that the offence was identified by the investigating officer in September 2023, and legal action was subsequently filed against the defendants by December 2023. Therefore, the case does not fall within the time bar as claimed by the petitioners.
After considering the submissions, Judge Karunaratne reiterated that the date of detection of an offence is not the date of the complaint, but the date on which the offence is uncovered through an investigation.
Attorney Jayatilaka, addressing the court again, maintained that the three-month period relevant to the time bar should begin from the date the complaint is made. He argued that the Magistrate’s order summoning his clients to appear in court on the 29th for the serving of charges was therefore flawed, and requested the court to revise that order.
Attorney Ranjith Heellage, appearing for the respondent Sanath Kumara Atukorala, stated that the petitioner hospital had filed multiple cases in this and higher courts based on this incident, but those petitions had either been withdrawn or dismissed.
After considering all the facts presented, the judge announced that the order regarding the petition would be delivered on the 27th, and directed that the case be called again on that date.
