Nandanakumarage Sunil Karunarathne v. Padmakumara Wickramasinghe et al. – CA PHC/52/13-2017

In the matter of Nandanakumarage Sunil Karunarathne (Petitioner Appellant) and Padmakumara Wickramasinghe and others (Accused Respondent Respondents), the court considered whether a revision application challenging an order of acquittal, filed after a 14½ month delay, should be entertained. It was held that such delay is fatal, particularly as revision is a discretionary remedy requiring prompt action. The findings established that explanations for the delay, including awaiting legal opinions or official responses, do not suffice to excuse non-compliance with procedural timelines. Reference was made to section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the precedent in Attorney-General vs. Podisingho, reaffirming that revisionary powers are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of demons