Court of Appeal rejects Yoshitha Rajapaksa’s revision plea in money laundering case

• AG had indicted Yoshitha Rajapaksa and Daisy Forrest on three counts alleging conspiracy to commit money laundering
• The Court also noted that the prosecution had sought the amendment to the indictment by a formal application made in open court in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel, who had raised no objection at that stage

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda 

The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed a revision application filed by Yoshitha Rajapaksa challenging the Colombo High Court’s decision to permit the Attorney General to proceed with an amended indictment in the money laundering case pending against him. 

A bench comprising Justices Amal Ranaraja and Dr Sumudu Premachandra held that the petitioner had failed to establish any exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the Court’s revisionary jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the application without costs. 

The Attorney General had indicted Yoshitha Rajapaksa and Daisy Forrest before the Colombo High Court on three counts alleging conspiracy to commit money laundering, the commission of money laundering and aiding and abetting the commission of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 

During pre-trial proceedings, counsel for the second accused informed court that Daisy Forrest, aged 98, was of unsound mind and unfit to plead. Following the submission of a medical report confirming her mental condition, the prosecution sought to withdraw the charges against her. The High Court allowed the application, stayed the proceedings against the second accused, discharged her from the case and permitted the indictment to be amended. 

Rajapaksa thereafter sought the intervention of the Court of Appeal, contending that the High Court had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act in determining the second accused’s fitness to plead. He further maintained that the withdrawal of charges against the second accused rendered the conspiracy charge against him unsustainable and that the subsequent amendment to the indictment was legally flawed. 

Delivering the judgement, Justice Amal Ranaraja observed that once the prosecution withdrew the charges against the second accused and the proceedings against her were stayed, there was no necessity for the High Court to determine whether she was fit to stand trial because she was no longer required to answer the indictment. The Court therefore held that the trial judge had not misdirected himself in declining to conduct such an inquiry. 

The Court further held that a discharge under Section 194(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act merely discontinues proceedings against the particular accused and does not amount to an acquittal. It ruled that such a discharge does not prevent the prosecution from continuing proceedings against any remaining accused named in the indictment. 

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument on the conspiracy charge, the Court observed that the second accused had not been acquitted on the merits but had been discharged solely on account of her medical condition. Therefore, the prosecution was legally entitled to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Yoshitha Rajapaksa notwithstanding the discontinuance of proceedings against the co-accused. 

The Court also noted that the prosecution had sought the amendment to the indictment by a formal application made in open court in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel, who had raised no objection at that stage. Having failed to object at the appropriate time, the petitioner could not subsequently complain that the amendment was procedurally improper, the Court held. 

Counsel Hafeel Farisz appeared for the petitioner. Deputy Solicitor General Janaka Bandara appeared for the Attorney General.