( March 2, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) According to the information that the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) received Mr. Gopalan Surendra (32) of Tawalantenna Road, Kotmale in Nuwara Eliya District is working as an accountant in a hardware shop in Gampola.
While traveling to towards Kandy on his motor cycle on the 13 December 2012 a pedestrian suddenly crossed the road and Surendra knocked him over. The pedestrian sustained minor injuries. Following the accident he was admitted to the Peradeniya Teaching Hospital and discharged the same day. An inquiry into the accident was conducted by the Peradeniya Police Station. Then police officers attached to the Peradeniya Police Station arrested and detained Surendra until the 14 December 2012 at the Peradeniya Police Station.
The police officers of Peradeniya Police Traffic Branch forced Surendra to retain a lawyer (name of the particular person withheld) to make the bail application and continue with the case before he was brought before the Magistrate. They further warned Surendra that if he did not follow their advice he would face further consequences.
At first instance when Surendra was produced before the Magistrate's Court of Kandy on 14 December, the Magistrate enlarged him on bail. The Magistrate further instructed the police to take further steps against Surendra and postponed the case until 21 of February of 2013. Before Surendra went to the court on the 21 February 2013 he consulted another lawyer for his case. Surendra convinced his lawyer that he is innocent in this case and he had not committed any crime during this incident.
Then this lawyer studied the case reports, the details of the incident and police reports pertaining to the case of what Surendra submitted. Then lawyer advised Surendra that according to all these reports and facts and laws pertaining to the case, the police cannot make any serious charges and it would be only be a minor charge that the police could charge him. So the lawyer advised him to just plead for those minor charges. He further explained to Surendra that these traffic offences come under the Motor Traffic Ordinance and not under the general criminal law of the country. So pleading for such a minor crime would not make any further consequences for his civil liberties.
The basis for the lawyer's explanation was based on a comparison between the long term difficulties that Surendra has to face if he continued with the case for trial and summarily pleaded guilty and finalized the case by paying small penalty. Lawyer explained as some length that if he continues with the case then due to continues delays in court system it would go on for several years. Then Surendra decided to simply plead guilty and conclude the case.
Then on 21 February Surendra with his lawyer (not the lawyer given by the police) went to the Magistrate Court of Kandy. Then he wanted to plead guilty when the case was called. According to the advice of the lawyer of Surendra on this day when the case is called before the Magistrate in open court it was the duty of the police officers to file the charge sheet and then the charge would be read by the bench clerk before the Magistrate. Then it would be for Surendra to plead guilty for charges and or continue with the case for trial by not pleading guilty.
At the court house Surendra observed that lawyer having learnt that Surendra has his own lawyer, instructed the police officer of the Paradeniya Traffic Branch not to tender the charge sheet to the court when the case is called. Then when the case was called in open court on 21 February 2013 the police informed the Magistrate that they are not ready with the charge sheet and the Magistrate postponed the case to 20 June 2013. Then Surendra and his lawyer were prevented from concluding the case by pleading guilty.
Thereafter Surendra's lawyer on 21 February 2013 was able to learn after observing the case report that the Paredeniya Police had filed the charge sheet under bearing No 69988 on the same day. Then they further learned that it is a criminal offense to take the charge sheet after having registered it in the Magistrate Court as it become a document of the court and no person is allowed to take back the document or rather the charge sheet as then it is solely under the authority of the Magistrate. Since it is a serious offense the lawyer made a complaint to the Magistrate on the same day 21 February 2013 on that issue. But still Surendra does not know what steps that have been taken on his complaint to investigate the illegal action made against him by the police officers. Then Surendra further learned that in Kandy Magistrate's Court there are few lawyers who stand across the entrance at the Magistrate's Court and forcibly take cases with the help of the police and this is one instance where a person was harassed because he has not retained the selected lawyer.
Surendra states that he was denied justice by the actions of police officers. He further states that all these illegal practices of police officers at the court house continuously violate his fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of the country. He further states that as he opposed the malicious advisers of police officers now he is fear of facing illegal revenge taking by the police officers. Surendra seeks for future protection for his life and protection of his rights as a civilian.
