Elected Doctor and non elected MP Mervyn Silva pleads guilty to cheque fraud

I refer to the news item in the Daily Mirror of July 25 and was astounded to read of the punishment meted for the offence committed by Mervyn Silva. I wonder whether Appuhamy would have got off that lightly, had he committed fraud and misappropriation, and whether the Penal Code did not apply to politicians.

The Dictionary defines Fraud as Deceit or Trickery deliberately practised in order to gain some advantage dishonestly. It also says that a person who makes deceitful pretenses is a Humbug and an Imposter.

Misappropriation is defined as Dishonestly or unfairly taken for one’s use.

I could safely conclude that the Penal Code clearly spells out the nature of the offence and the punishment that should go with it, for all citizens. The State always proclaims that all its subjects are equal before the law. The most recent instance was over the Rizana case, where the Cabinet spokesman vowed that action would be taken in keeping with procedure.

I am certain that that there is no ambiguity in the law and also no

provision for anyone to be treated differently, be it Appuhamy or Mervyn Silva, sorry Dr Mervyn Silva. I think it is relevant to inquire from the State Attorneys, whether they could justify this action, where charges were allegedly tailored to be helpful to the accused. Is this not an instance where the judicial process has been tinkered with, and with far reaching implications.

I earnestly request the Bar Association and the OPA not to accept this kid glove treatment to an individual and ensure that justice is done. The social impact of such special treatment will be disastrous as citizen ‘Perera’ could not have got off by paying Rs 2,500 as State costs. If this episode is swept under the carpet, could the State indict another citizen for fraud. If so, would it not be a violation of his Fundamental Rights.
An ex peon of the CWE, he gets emboldened because of his political clout and goes from one alleged crime to another in confidence. I have no doubt that the press would relentlessly pursue this matter.

It is not who is involved but, to ensure that the law takes its course, irrespective of personalities.

Dr Mervyn admitted to a lesser charge of committing criminal misappropriation with a dishonoured cheque, using a false signature. On his own admission could he remain a Minster of State or, a Member of Parliament, even though not an elected representative. If Parliament, the supreme legislature, permits a man, who pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of cheque fraud, continue as a Member, then, it goes without saying that the entire legislature condones fraud and misappropriation.

I trust that the Justices of the Supreme Court will ensure that the rule of law, irrespective of the person/s involved, is enforced and punishment befitting the crime, meted out, so that, society could rest assured, as to what is in store, for transgressing the law.

The country is aware of the manner in which the Supreme Court responded to a big mouthed politico and the price he paid for being outspoken. Their Lordships, justifiably, took a serious view of what they considered to be an affront to their decision. In my view this is an offence that is as serious if not more so and that society must not get a wrong signal of approval of fraud and criminal misappropriation.

I trust that this matter will not be swept under the carpet. Needless to say that law abiding citizens watch with avid interest, how the laws of the land will be applied and what place fraud and misappropriation will occupy in society.