Case Summary: SC FR No. 170/2022

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

1. Parties Involved

Petitioner:

• P.W.T. Dhanushka – A Sergeant of Police attached to the Police Narcotics Bureau (PNB).

Respondents:

1. C.D. Wickramaratne – Inspector General of Police (IGP).
2. SSP Nishantha De Zoysa – Director, Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
3. CI Lalith Dissanayake – Officer-in-Charge, Special Unit, CID.
4. CI Waduge Krishantha Ruwan Kumara – Officer-in-Charge (Acting), Mahawa Police Station.
5. Hon. Attorney General – Attorney General’s Department.

2. Issues in Dispute

2.1 Alleged Unlawful Arrest & Detention

• The Petitioner claimed that he was arrested by CID officers on 26-06-2020 while performing his duties at PNB.
• He alleged that he was not informed of the reason for his arrest and was detained for an extended period under three consecutive Detention Orders, each lasting 90 days, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
• The CID, however, maintained that the Petitioner was summoned to the CID premises on 26-06-2020 and arrested based on reasonable suspicion.

2.2 Violation of Fundamental Rights

• The Petitioner claimed that his fundamental rights under the Sri Lankan Constitution were violated, specifically under:
  • Article 11 – Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman treatment.
  • Article 12(1) – Right to equal protection of the law.
  • Articles 13(1), 13(2), 13(3), 13(5) – Rights related to arrest, detention, and legal process.
  • Articles 14(1)(g) and 14(1)(h) – Freedom of occupation and movement.

2.3 Legality of Arrest and Detention Orders

• The CID defended the arrest, stating that:
  • The Petitioner was suspected of involvement in criminal activities, including drug trafficking, illegal weapons dealings, and organized crime.
  • A complaint from CI Ruwan Kumara of PNB led to an investigation against the Petitioner and other officers for criminal misconduct.
  • Based on preliminary findings, reasonable suspicion justified the arrest and subsequent detention under the PTA.
• The Petitioner challenged the validity of the Detention Orders, arguing that:
  • The Detention Orders (DOs) were signed by the President, not explicitly as the Minister of Defence, making them invalid.
  • The CID failed to produce him before a Magistrate within the time limits prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure Act (CCPA).

2.4 Alleged Involvement in Criminal Activities

• The CID submitted that their investigation uncovered credible evidence linking the Petitioner to:
  • Drug trafficking and organized crime.
  • Smuggling and handling illegal weapons.
  • Abetting large-scale heroin distribution and aiding criminal networks.
  • Tampering with evidence stored at the PNB.
• A search of his residence on 28-06-2020 revealed suspicious items, including:
  • Multiple SIM cards
  • Pen drives
  • External hard drives
  • A key to the safe box at the PNB production room (where seized contraband is stored).

3. Court’s Judgement

3.1 Arrest & Detention Justified

• The Court found that the CID had sufficient reasonable suspicion to arrest the Petitioner under Section 6(1) of the PTA, which allows for arrests based on suspected unlawful activity.
• The Court rejected the Petitioner’s claim that he was arrested unlawfully while at PNB.

3.2 Validity of the Detention Orders

• The Petitioner argued that some Detention Orders (3 R 6, 3 R 7) were signed by the President, and not explicitly in his capacity as Minister of Defence, rendering them invalid.
• The Court ruled that:
  • Since the President is also the Minister of Defence under Article 44(3) of the Constitution, the Detention Orders were valid and legally issued.
  • The technical argument regarding the designation on the DOs was insufficient to invalidate them, given the serious nature of the allegations against the Petitioner.

3.3 No Violation of Fundamental Rights

• The Court concluded that the CID acted lawfully in:
  • Arresting the Petitioner under the PTA.
  • Issuing Detention Orders based on reasonable suspicion.
  • Conducting a search of the Petitioner’s residence, which yielded incriminating evidence.
• Therefore, no fundamental rights violations were found.

3.4 Questions on Reinstatement

• Despite the allegations and ongoing legal issues, the Petitioner was reinstated as a police officer.
• The Court found this concerning and directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to review the legality and suitability of his continued employment.

4. Conclusion & Final Decision

1. The Petition was dismissed with costs, meaning the Petitioner lost the case and had to cover legal expenses.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the arrest and detention under the PTA.
3. The Detention Orders were ruled valid, despite the President signing them instead of explicitly as Minister of Defence.
4. The Inspector General of Police (IGP) was ordered to investigate how and why the Petitioner was reinstated despite the allegations against him.