Madhawa Roshan Kithulgoda v. Hon. Attorney General – CA-HCC-41/2020-2021

In the case between Madhawa Roshan Kithulgoda (applicant-appellant, registered owner of vehicle WP KD 9832) and the Hon. Attorney General (respondent-respondent), the primary issue concerned the lawfulness of confiscating the appellant’s vehicle due to its alleged use in cannabis trafficking. The court determined that technical procedural errors such as caption deficiencies and omission of parties did not warrant dismissal of the appeal in limine, and substantive justice necessitated a review on the merits. Following a comprehensive evaluation of evidence, it was held that the appellant neither knowingly permitted nor failed to prevent the use of his vehicle for the offence, as required under Section 79 of the Poisons, Opium, and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance for forfeiture. The decision under