Director General, Bribery and Corruption Commission v. Kaggoda Arachchige Dayalatha – CA 216/2011-2011

In Director General, Bribery and Corruption Commission v. Kaggoda Arachchige Dayalatha, the court addressed whether the conviction and sentence of the Accused-Appellant under Sections 19(b) and 19(c) of the Bribery Act should stand given the evidentiary contradictions and delays, and the alleged lack of proper judicial reasoning in the High Court’s evaluation of the defence. The conviction was set aside, with the holding that material contradictions and significant delay in complaint, coupled with the trial court’s omission to justify the rejection of defence evidence, rendered the conviction unsafe. The principle reaffirmed was that a conviction must rest on reliable evidence and the trial court is required to provide clear reasoning for rejecting defence testimony, in line with fair tria