Tillakaratne and Others v. Attorney-General – sllr 1989 volume 2 page 054

In the case of Tillakaratne and Others (accused-appellants) v. The Attorney-General, the court addressed whether accused individuals charged with robbery may instead be found guilty of retaining stolen property and whether convictions could be sustained on such a basis under the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that where the evidence demonstrates possession and knowledge regarding stolen property, a conviction for retention under section 394 is permissible even if the original charge was for robbery under section 380, in line with provisions under sections 177 and 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further determined that circumstantial and direct evidence supporting a concert of action justified a finding of conspiracy. The reasoning reaffirmed the principle