It is regrettable that Police Chief evades arrest -Court of Appeal Judge

• Says it is unbecoming of the head of police with extensive knowledge on law

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda  
While dismissing the writ petition filed by Inspector General of Police Deshabandu Tennakoon, the Court of Appeal yesterday observed that it is regrettable that the head of the police department, who possesses extensive knowledge of the law, hid for several days to prevent his arrest and this would not only undermine the judiciary but also tarnishes the reputation of the police department. 

The Court of Appeal’s two-judge bench, comprising Justice (Acting President) Mohamed Laffar and Justice Sarath Dissanayake, made these remarks while delivering its order regarding IGP Tennakoon’s writ petition.   “It is deeply concerning and regrettable that the head of the Police Department, who possesses extensive knowledge of the law and holds a position of great responsibility, is involved in a grievous offence and is actively evading arrest. His failure to cooperate with the Court’s order and his attempts to remain in hiding not only undermine the principles of justice but also tarnish the reputation of the Police Department,” Justice Laffar said.  
The court directed the authorities concerned and the Acting Inspector General of Police to take all necessary measures to execute the Magistrate’s order and ensure that the petitioner is arrested and produced before the Magistrate’s Court in accordance with the law, upholding the rule of law. The Court further directed the Magistrate to take appropriate action against individuals who aided and abetted the petitioner in evading arrest.   The Court held that, according to the facts presented before it, the petitioner, Deshabandu Tennakoon, had not approached the court with clean hands and, therefore, was not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction. The court decided to dismiss the writ petition with costs fixed at Rs. 10,525.  
“Such actions are unacceptable and diminish public trust in the very institution entrusted with upholding law and order. The petitioner, who is responsible for enforcing the law and setting an example for society, cannot be permitted to act as though he is above the law,” Justice Laffar observed.  
The Court of Appeal further noted that the Police Department and the judiciary must operate impartially. If these institutions fail to uphold their standards, their actions will erode public confidence in the justice system and the administration of justice as a whole.  
Meanwhile, an Attorney-at-Law appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Tennakoon, filed a motion before the Court of Appeal requesting permission to submit additional documents related to the writ petition, including certified copies of the Magistrate’s Court proceedings.   At this stage, Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peeris, appearing for the Attorney General, raised objections to the motion, citing that the matter had been fully argued on March 12 and that counsel for the petitioner had not reserved his right to submit these documents. Furthermore, the petitioner has been absconding for the past 16 days.  
President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva, appearing for Tennakoon, had argued that the Magistrate’s arrest order was issued contrary to legal provisions and without recording a statement from his client.  
However, Additional Solicitor General Dileepa Peeris, PC, appearing for the Attorney General, informed court that Tennakoon was the mastermind behind the Weligama hotel operation, which led to a shooting targeting the hotel owner.   Silva argued that the arrest order issued by the Magistrate was erroneous. He submitted to the court that the reports filed before the Magistrate’s Court by the police could not be considered reports under Section 136(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that it was not a valid report under the law and, therefore, all subsequent proceedings should be deemed illegal.