A Commissioner of the Bribery and Corruption Commission has found there is no “material upon which an investigation need to be conducted” against the Chairman of the Commission, former Supreme Court Judge Jagath De Silva Balapatabendi in relation to a complaint submitted by JVP MP Sunil Handunetti on January 1, 2014. The JVP MP alleged [...]

News

No material to probe bribery head over charge – one-commissioner probe

Registration of 145 vehicles at RMV
View(s):

A Commissioner of the Bribery and Corruption Commission has found there is no “material upon which an investigation need to be conducted” against the Chairman of the Commission, former Supreme Court Judge Jagath De Silva Balapatabendi in relation to a complaint submitted by JVP MP Sunil Handunetti on January 1, 2014.

The JVP MP alleged that Justice Balapatabendi was one of the judges of the Supreme Court who gave a positive order in favour of Vehicles Lanka (Private) Ltd which is said to be owned by Mr. Harsha Prabath De Silva, the appellant in the case before his Court to register 145 vehicles with the RMV (Registrar of Motor Vehicles).

The gravamen of the complaint was that one of those vehicles bearing no. KG 9321 was registered in pursuance of that order in the name of Justice Balapatabendi and it constituted a bribe.

The complainant also said there was fraudulent manipulation of documents at the office of the RMV with the connivance of Justice Balapatabendi.

The one-man Commissioner of the Commission is reported to have acted under Section 4(2) of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No 19 of 1994 which states that the “Commission should be satisfied that a complaint made is genuine and that the said complaint discloses material upon which an investigation ought to be conducted.”

Section 2(8) of the same law states; “Where a member of the Commission exercises any such power sitting separately, his acts shall be deemed to be an act of the Commission”.

The Commissioner so acting says he has gone into the complaint and found, inter-alia, that the vehicle KG 9321 was sold to Mr. C.S.P. Fernando before the case came to the Supreme Court and therefore it could not have constituted a bribe to Justice Balapatabendi who was then sitting in the Supreme Court.

The findings show that the same Mr. C.S.P. Fernando registered the vehicle KG 9321 on June 10, 2010.

Mr.Fernando had then transferred the vehicle to Justice Balapatabendi who registered it in his name on 13 January, 2011, and then sold it to Mr. Senerath Jayasinghe who registered it on April 22 2013, which was again sold to Mr. M.S.M. Weligala who registered it in his name on June 6.

Mr. Handunettti said he was unaware if any action has been taken on his complaint made at the beginning of this year.

Share This Post

DeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspace

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.