Head of probe team ordered by SC to compensate FR victim – Dy. Registrar

The Supreme Court had ordered three police officers, including Inspector Anura de Silva, the chief investigating officer in the ‘White Flag’ case, to pay Rs. 5,000 each to a person whose fundamental rights they had violated, Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court R. A. S. G. Ranawaka told the High Court Trial-at-Bar, when the White Flag case was taken up on Wednesday.



This followed the Defence Counsel Nalin Ladduwahetty requesting the Court, on June 1, to grant him permission to forward to the Court, as evidence, the verdicts delivered by the High Court and the Supreme Court on charges against the Police Inspector who handled the investigations into the White Flag case.



The Counsel, appearing for former Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka, told Court that he wondered if the investigations, conducted by the inspector, were impartial and whether his evidence was acceptable.



There were three cases filed against the Inspector on human rights violations, the Court was told.



The Bench comprised Judge Deepali Wijesundara (President) and Judges W. M. T. P. B. Warawewa and M. Z. Razeen.



Gen. Fonseka has been indicted on three counts, including a statement allegedly made by him in an interview with The Sunday



Leader newspaper on December 13, 2009, which would have aroused racial tensions and caused public ill-feeling and resentment towards the government.



Responding to Defence Counsel Ladduwahetty, Ranawaka said that Inspector Anura Silva was the second accused in FR case number 553/02. Identifying the first and the third accused as Anura Serog Wijewardene and Roshan Masinghe, respectively, Ranawaka said that all three were attached to criminal Investigation Department.



Asked to state the verdict given by Justices S. M. Silva, Raja Fernando and Dissanayake on May 27, 2005, Ranawaka said that the three CID officers had been directed to pay Rs. 5,000 each to the complaint for violating the Constitution.



Cross-examined by Deputy Solicitor General Buwaneka Aluvihare, the witness said that Anura de Silva had been identified as a Sub Inspector in the 553/02 FR case file.



DSG: If I suggested that the SC directed the three accused to take some action other than paying Rs. 5,000 each to the complaint, would you accept that?



Witness: I’ll have to go through the verdict. There’s no mention of such a directive.



DSG: It is mentioned there that the person, who had filed the FR case had been under investigation for misappropriation of Rs. 1.5 million at Ceylinco Capital.



Witness: Yes



DSG: What if I suggest to you that the Ceylinco employee had been alleged to have misappropriated Rs 40 million according to the case file?



Witness: I’ll have to check.



Referring to an affidavit submitted by Police Inspector H. M. Ammavila, the DSG asked the witness whether the official had asserted that the total amount misappropriated was estimated at over Rs. 40 million. The witness replied ‘Yes’



Defence Counsel: Did the SC verdict make any reference to a Rs. 40 million fraud?



Witness: No



The Defence Counsel posed several questions to Deputy Registrar K. A. Chamikara Perera regarding a High Court case filed against Anura de Silva under the Torture Act.



Defence Counsel: Who is the first witness for the complainant in this High Court case?



Witness: Brahmanage Anura Seros Susantha.



Referring to a note dated June 28, 2010, the Defence Counsel pointed out that the Attorney General had decided not to go ahead with the case against Anura de Silva.



The witness endorsed this position.



Responding to another query by the Defence Counsel, the witness said that the Courts had given in to the Attorney General’s move.



Sittings will resume today 10.30 a.m. today