Dharmadasa v. Director General, Commission To Investigate Allegations of Bribery Or Corruption and Another – sllr 2003 volume 1 page 064

In the case between Medagedera Dharmadasa (Appellant) and the Director General, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption and Another (Respondents), the court addressed the issue of whether the accused’s conviction under Section 19 of the Bribery Act for soliciting and accepting an illegal gratuity was sustainable in light of alleged procedural failings by the trial Magistrate concerning the evaluation of the accused’s evidence. It was held that the conviction on counts 1 and 3 should be affirmed, with the suspension period of the sentence reduced from ten to five years, reaffirming the principle that the sufficiency and cogency of evidence must guide appellate review, and that procedural lapses not occasioning prejudice do not vitiate conviction. The decision relied o