Padmadasa Nimal Subasinghe vs. Hon Attorney General – CA HC/197/2009-2017

In the case between Padmadasa Nimal Subasinghe (Accused-Appellant) and the Hon Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department (Respondent), the court addressed whether a conviction for forgery and property transfer by forged documents, under Sections 102 and 456 of the Penal Code, could be sustained in light of evidentiary deficiencies. It was determined that the prosecution failed to establish the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases. Contradictions in the Notary’s testimony and lack of forensic examination on the deed were highlighted, and the State conceded that the required criminal standard had not been met. Accordingly, the court quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered an acquittal, reaffirming that convictions in criminal matters