Kakulandara vs. Director General, Prevention of Bribery and Corruption – sllr 2006 volume 3 page 090

The case between Kakulandara (Plaintiff) and Director General, Prevention of Bribery and Corruption (Defendant) addressed whether the prosecution discharged its burden in proving that the accused’s expenditure exceeded his known income, as required under Section 23A of the Bribery Act. It was held that the prosecution failed to conduct a thorough investigation into all sources of the accused’s income, notably overlooking receipts such as payments from the Bank of Ceylon, and therefore did not satisfy the legal burden of proof. The principle reaffirmed in this decision requires that any prosecution under the Bribery Act must be supported by a complete and exhaustive inquiry into the accused’s income before filing charges. Reliance was placed on statutory interpretation of Section 23A and su