In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 3 million on a private citizen who lodged a false complaint with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) against another private citizen, resulting in his being remanded.
“Police officers cannot mechanically make an arrest upon a mere complaint received without forming the opinion that the allegation is credible,” Justice B.P. Aluwihare said in his judgement. “Thus, a police officer is required to make necessary investigations, unless the facts are obvious, to verify whether the complaint is credible or whether the information provided is reliable.”
An arrest upon a general or vague suspicion would lead to significantly abridging the personal liberties guaranteed to a person by the Constitution, Justice Aluwihare said. “Therefore, an element of prudence is required from police officers before making an arrest to verify the allegation.
This requirement, in my view, applies with greater force in ‘white collar’ crimes,” he said. “The reason being, it needs to be ascertained whether the impugned transaction is purely a commercial transaction which had gone wrong or whether the suspect had the intent to defraud.”
With Justices A.H.M.D. Nawaz and Mahinda Samayawardhena agreed the first respondent—Inspector M.M. Janaka Marsinghe, OIC of the CID’s Special Investigation Unit—was ordered to pay Rs 75,000 in compensation to the petitioner, Ganeshan Samson Roy of Colombo 5. Two other investigation officers of the CID were directed to pay Rs. 25,000 each.
The petitioner’s travails started when he consented to let his then sister-in-law-to-be, Rehana, use his bank account to receive a loan that she had signed up with M.M. Saveen Chathuranga, against whom the Supreme Court subsequently ruled. Accordingly, Rs 7 million was deposited in several tranches by Mr Chathuranga into Mr Roy’s account.
Subsequently, Mr Chathuranga accused Rehana of not having honoured the instalment payments, which she denied, stating she had repaid all the money borrowed. She submitted documentary evidence to the police as proof of payment.
However, Mr. Chathuranga then maintained that he had deposited the money in Mr. Roy’s account and that he would be compelled to complain to the CID if he did not repay him. He later acted on this threat by providing a statement to the CID that Mr Roy and Rehana had defrauded him of Rs. 7 million by agreeing to import BMW vehicles on his behalf and then avoiding him. No evidence was provided to the court of such a contract.
The respondent CID officers, in their objections to the court, did not give details of the investigation or steps taken by them in pursuance of Mr. Chathuranga’s complaint.
“What is more shocking is that, after the complaint was made against the petitioner, no attempt appears to have been made by the CID officers to notice the petitioner of the complaint made against him, nor had they independently verified the truth of the allegation,” the Court observed.
Five months later, the petitioner was arrested by the CID at the airport as he was travelling to China and Malaysia on holiday (at which point he learned that a travel ban was in operation). This was the first time he was informed of any allegation or charge against him by the authorities–that of criminal breach of trust in obtaining Rs. 7 million on a promise to import two BMW vehicles for Mr Chathuranga.
After being produced before the Acting Magistrate Wattala, Mr Roy was remanded for eight days.
The Supreme Court found that it was clear that the CID officers “had acted on the complaint without making any attempt to verify the complaint independently or attempting to verify whether the complaint” of Mr. Chathuranga was creditworthy.
The Court did not accept that the CID officers had reasons to believe Mr Roy was evading justice and said his arrest was “defective from the inception”. It held that the complaint made by Mr. Chathuranga was“ certainly false”, as could be gleaned from background facts.
“In the process of protecting the fundamental rights of the citizenry, the Court cannot condone private parties instigating the executive to use its powers to achieve their ulterior motives unreasonably and/or in an arbitrary manner,” it said, holding Mr Chathuranga liable. “Permitting such conduct would lead to a breakdown of the Rule of Law and erode public confidence; as such, infractions should be frowned upon by this Court.”
Counsel Senany Dayarathne with Eshanthi Mendis appeared for the petitioner, Mr Roy. State Counsel Induni Punchihewa represented the CID officers, the IGP and the Attorney General. Counsel Migara Kodituwakku instructed by Rukshan Aravinda Gamage appeared for the sixth respondent, Mr. Chathuranga.
Source: Sunday Times
