Haswi vs. Jaytissa and Two Others – sllr 2011 volume 1 page 094

In the case between the appellant (a subsequent possessor of a vehicle) and the respondent, Kalutota Investment (Pvt) Ltd (the absolute owner under a hire purchase agreement), the court addressed the issue of the correct application of Section 431(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the delivery of property seized by police. It was held that the property should not automatically be returned to the person from whose possession it was seized when such person is not the absolute owner, especially if the property does not fall within the categories specified in Section 431(1). The court reaffirmed that the true owner is entitled to possession in such circumstances. This principle was supported by judicial precedents including De Alwis vs. De Alwis and others. The appeal by the appella