Sarath Kulathunga v. Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption – CA CPA/52/2020-2020

In the case between Sarath Kulathunga (Applicant/Accused-Petitioner) and the Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (Respondent), the court addressed whether the High Court erred by discharging the accused instead of delivering a verdict of acquittal or conviction pursuant to Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. It was held that, following the close of both prosecution and defense cases, the court is mandated to pronounce a verdict rather than a discharge, reaffirming the principle that post-trial discharges are improper where a verdict is required. Reference was made to relevant statutes and precedents (including Solicitor General v. Aradiel; Dyson v. Khan; Chandrapala Perera v. AG) to clarify the distinction between a discharge and