Owner Not Liable for Renter’s Offence: Appeal Court Clarifies Precautionary Duty
In the case CA PHC 74/2020, the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka delivered judgment in favor of the appellant, Rathnayake Mudiyanselage Indika Pushpakumara Rathnayake, who had appealed against the confiscation of his tractor and trailer by the Magistrate’s Court of Siyambalanduwa. The matter arose under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Ordinance No. 30 of 1945 (as amended).
The appellant, a registered owner of a tractor and trailer bearing registration numbers UPRS 4264 and UPRW 3860, had rented out his vehicle to a third party on 20.10.2015 for the purpose of transporting sand extracted from a land known as “Ura Oya” in the Monaragala District. Unbeknownst to the appellant, the individuals who rented the vehicle used it to extract and transport sand in violation of the permit conditions.
The Range Forest Officer of Siyambalanduwa, upon discovering the illegal activity, seized the vehicle and filed a case in the Magistrate’s Court of Siyambalanduwa. The two individuals involved were charged under Sections 20(1)(g) and 40(1)(b) of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. They were subsequently found guilty and convicted. Following the conviction, the Magistrate ordered the confiscation of the vehicle on 19.07.2018.
The appellant then filed a revision application in the High Court of Monaragala (HCRA 9/2017), asserting that he had taken all necessary precautions to prevent his vehicle from being used for illegal purposes. However, the High Court dismissed his application on 26.05.2020, thereby affirming the Magistrate’s confiscation order.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that as a third-party owner, he had not committed the offence and had taken reasonable precautions to prevent misuse of his vehicle. He testified that he had verified the permit of the third party before renting out the vehicle and had instructed the driver not to use the vehicle for any illegal activity.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Amal Ranaraja and B. Sasi Mahendran, found that the appellant’s evidence was credible and irrefutable, and there was no requirement for corroborative evidence in such cases when the owner’s testimony demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that sufficient precautions were taken. The Court cited a precedent—Adambarage Kelum Thushantha Alwis v. Attorney General (CA PHC 211/2019)—which reinforced this principle.
The Court held that the High Court had erred by failing to give due weight to the appellant’s unchallenged testimony and by misdirecting itself in affirming the Magistrate’s order. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside both the Magistrate’s and High Court’s orders and directed that the tractor and trailer be returned to the appellant.
The Registrar was instructed to notify the Magistrate’s Court of Siyambalanduwa for compliance. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant as a third-party owner who had exercised due diligence.
