By Farook Sihan
(Lanka-e-News -22.Jan.2026, 11.40 PM) The Kalmunai Magistrate’s Court has ordered that the statement of a High Court Judge, who has been identified as a suspect in a case, be recorded and that a final report or charge sheet be filed on or before 11 February 2026, and accordingly postponed the matter to that date.
The order arises from allegations that the suspect threatened Mr. Mohamed Haneefa Notary Public over a mobile phone and obstructed him from carrying out his official duties.
When the case was taken up for inquiry in the open court on Wednesday (21) before Hon. K.L.M. Sajith, Magistrate of Kalmunai, the Periya Neelavanai Police made submissions stating that the statement of the suspect had not yet been recorded and that advice was awaited in respect of the case file sent to the Police Legal Division. The police therefore requested another date to report to court after receiving such advice.
Objecting to these submissions, Attorney-at-Law Mubarak Muazzam, appearing for the virtual complainant, submitted that despite a clear order issued by the Honourable Court at the previous hearing directing the recording of the suspect’s statement and the filing of a final report under section 120 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act or charge sheet under 136 (1) (b) of the same Act, the Periya Neelavanai Police, as the investigating authority, were repeatedly seeking postponements with the intention of delaying the proceedings. He therefore urged the Court to issue a firm order directing the police to record the suspect’s statement and file the final report in order to meet the ends of justice in the matter.
Having heard submissions from both sides, the Magistrate ordered that the suspect’s statement be recorded and that the final report in the case be filed in court. The case was thereafter postponed to 11 February 2026, Attorney-at-Law Mubarak Muazzam and Attorney-at-Law Nithanshan appeared for the virtual complainant.
Based on a complaint made in 2022 by the complainant Mahadevan Muralitharan to the Periya Neelavanai Police, a B Report dated 28.11.2022 was filed by the said police before the Kalmunai Magistrate’s Court.
According to the said B Report, the suspect had threatened a Notary Public who had attested and executed an transfer deed of the complainant, thereby preventing and obstructing the notary from performing his official duties. On that basis, the suspect was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 344 and 486 of the Penal Code of Sri Lanka.
The mobile phone numbers of both the suspect and the Notary Public Mr. Mohamed Haneefa were stated in the complaint, and pursuant to orders made by court, call detail records and other telecommunications data were obtained from the relevant service providers. On the basis of these records, the suspect was identified, and the telecommunications reports confirmed that the suspect had indeed made calls to the Notary Public.
Accordingly, on 03.12.2025, the investigating officers of the Neelavanai Police filed further reports in court, naming Jeyalakshi D. Silva as the suspect in the case. Consequent to this, the Honourable Magistrate of Kalmunai directed the investigating officers to expedite investigations and either file the final report in terms of Section 120(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act or file a charge sheet under Section 136(1)(a) thereof.
However, when the case was called in open court on 07.01.2026, the Neelavanai Police submitted that the suspect was a Judge of the Provincial High Court sitting in Ampara, and that based on advice received from the Assistant Superintendent of Police, the case file had been forwarded to the Honourable Attorney General for instructions. The police therefore requested a further date to obtain such advice and take further action.
Strongly objecting to these submissions, Attorney-at-Law Mubarak Muazzam, appearing for the virtual complainant, submitted that despite time having already been granted to file a final report or charge sheet, the attempt by the prosecution to seek the Attorney General’s advice amounted to an unusual and unjustified delay, aimed at diverting the course of the proceedings. He further submitted that such conduct obstructed the course of justice and undermined the fundamental rule of law principle that all persons are equal before the law.
He also pointed out that in recent months even individuals who held the highest positions in the executive branch had been summoned by the Criminal Investigation Department, had their statements recorded, were arrested, and produced before court. He emphasized that the law must be applied equally to all, and that holding a high office does not confer immunity.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Honourable Court observed that forwarding the case file to the Attorney General without first recording the suspect’s statement constituted a procedural deficiency. The Court therefore granted another date for the recording of the suspect’s statement and for the filing of the final report.
In that context, it is noteworthy that the case was again taken up for inquiry on 21.01.2026.
---------------------------
by (2026-01-22 22:02:46)
Read 7494 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news