News
SC rules Matugama police officers violated businessman’s fundamental rights
View(s):The Supreme Court has ordered three Matugama police officers to pay a man a total of Rs 75,000 for violating his fundamental rights by, among other things, arresting him on a vague general suspicion.
Another respondent, an Ingiriya resident, was separately ordered to pay J.K. Rajitha Prasanna of Colombo 5 compensation of Rs 75,000 for initiating and instigating the police to violate his fundamental rights. The officers are a sergeant, sub inspector and chief inspector of the Matugama police.
The judgment, delivered on June 6, was the second against the Police Department in seven days. On May 30, the Court ordered compensation of Rs 1 million to a man tortured by officers of the Bandaragama police station. Half of this was to be met through the personal funds of the errant sub inspector, constable, sergeant and security assistant. The rest was to be paid by the State.
Mr Prasanna is a businessman who bought scrap rubber from the respondent, Pinnawalage Chandrasena. In January 2011, the latter delivered scrap rubber to the Mr Prasanna’s factory who issued him a cash cheque.
After Mr Chandrasena left the premises, a factory employee notified Mr Prasanna that part of the scrap rubber consignment was substandard. Mr Prasanna immediately informed the seller via telephone that the rubber was unsuitable and told him not to present the cheque for payment until the accounts were examined, settled and the sums payable correctly ascertained. The respondent agreed.
However, Mr Chandrasena surreptitiously tendered the cheque to the bank, only to have the payment refused (as Mr Prasanna had already given instructions to the bank). He then lodged a complaint with the police despite having agreed to wait till matters were sorted out to claim payment.
Mr Prasanna reported to the police when summoned. After hearing his explanation, the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the Matugama Police stated that this was a civil matter and directed his offers to take a statement. However, in March 2011, Mr Prasanna was arrested and placed in a police cell with other inmates.
After producing him before a magistrate, police moved to remand Mr Prasanna without disclosing to court the contents of his statement. Police told court that Mr. Prasanna had committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. His bail application was objected to without reasonable cause. He was remanded and kept in prison.
Mr Prasanna’s fundamental rights petition averred that the police acted together with Mr Chandrasena maliciously and without reasonable cause. Before the Supreme Court, police officers denied acting in a malicious manner towards Mr. Prasanna or breaching his fundamental rights. Mr Chandrasena did not participate in the proceedings. But Court ruled that he and the respective police officers did breach Mr Prasanna’s fundamental rights.
“Whatever it may be, the petitioner could not have been arrested and produced before court on the available materials as the facts are supportive of a civil transaction,” Justice Anil Gooneratne held, with Chief Justice Priyasath Dep and Justice Upaly Abeyrathne agreeing. “This is a very unfortunate incident, for the authorities concerned to have deprived the petitioner of his personal liberty, by attaching criminal liability to the transaction in question.”
The law cannot permit this sort of lapses to take place, either knowingly or unknowingly, and deprive a person’s freedom and personal liberty, he ruled. In the type of business transaction that had taken place between Mr Prasanna and Mr Chandrasena, payments were sometimes withheld for various reasons. Every such transaction would not amount to cheating.
Justice Gooneratne observed that, “The hurry in which a prosecution was launched by the police is rather suspicious. This appears to be a simple case of goods sold and delivered, where a buyer would have an option to reject the goods for want of quality. As such, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that his constitutional rights are violated.”
“Even if the police had a wrong appreciation of the law,” he stated, “yet the infringement would remain. It is essential to comply with the statutory provisions established by law designed to protect the liberty of the subject.”
“An arrest must be supported by clear provisions of the law,” the Court held, adding that “a police officer has no right to arrest a person on vague general suspicion, not knowing the precise crime suspected but hoping to obtain evidence of the commission of some crime for which he has the power to arrest.”
Court ruled that the errant police officers had acted with Mr Chandrasena, who instigated them, maliciously; and that there was no legal bias to arrest Mr Prasanna, this being a pure civil transaction.