Gampaha Court orders Rs. 200,000 compensation after police filed two drug cases against the same man on the same day.
Gampaha Court has ordered compensation after finding that police filed two drug cases against the same person on the same day under the same charge.
Gampaha Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne ordered three officers of the Gampaha Police Anti-Corruption Unit and the Police Department to pay Rs. 200,000 as compensation to a man prosecuted on false evidence over alleged drug possession.
The Magistrate strongly observed that if police officers act on orders from superiors to increase the number of cases month after month, Sri Lanka’s population would not be enough for the police to file cases within five years.
He concluded that the officers had filed exploitative cases in a manner that oppressed a citizen and ordered compensation accordingly.
The Gampaha Magistrate also emphasized that an increase in the number of cases actually reflects the inefficiency of the police officers in charge of a particular area.
He further ordered the Court Registrar to send a copy of the order to the Inspector General of Police.
The Magistrate acquitted Chamara Chathuranga Marasinghe, a resident of Dewalapola, Makandana, from both cases filed against him by the Gampaha Police Anti-Corruption Unit.
He then ordered the arresting police officers and the Police Department to pay the relevant compensation.
Two Same-Day Cases Under One Charge
On or around May 6, 2026, the Officer-in-Charge of the Gampaha Anti-Corruption Unit filed a case against Chamara Chathuranga Marasinghe, alleging that he possessed 130mg of ICE and 500mg of Heroin at Asgiriya Junction in Gampaha.
A Police Sergeant and a Constable from the Gampaha Anti-Corruption Unit were named as witnesses in the case.
When one drug possession case against Chamara Chathuranga Marasinghe was called, he pleaded guilty to the charges and a fine was imposed.
Moments later, another case under the same charge was called against him.
After observing that two cases had been filed against the same person on the same day, Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne summoned the relevant officers to court.
He sought to inquire why action should not be taken against the witnesses and senior officers in those cases under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for filing cases in a manner oppressive to citizens.
However, none of them appeared in court.
When the case was called, the Police Sergeant appearing for the prosecution stated that 16 other persons had been arrested along with this accused on the day of the raid.
He said the charges against this accused had therefore been filed incorrectly.
The Police Sergeant requested that one of the two cases against Chamara Chathuranga Marasinghe be withdrawn and permission be granted to proceed with the other.
The Magistrate emphasized that the purpose of police raids should be to present evidence before a court to prove the guilt of those arrested.
He pointed out that by naming three police officers as witnesses in the case filed against the accused, it was clear the case had been filed with the intention of securing a conviction at trial.
Accordingly, the Magistrate rejected the police request and stated that it could not be granted.
The Magistrate also stated that Government Analyst reports show the quantities of drugs mentioned in a large number of police drug cases are significantly lower than what police claim.
He emphasized that some case productions sent to the Government Analyst contain extremely small quantities of drugs, while in some cases, no drugs are detected at all.
The Magistrate pointed out that although the Police Department has issued instructions to increase drug raids, those instructions are being implemented in a highly informal manner.
He noted that orders were given to superiors to increase the number of cases month after month to assess the progress of police stations and officers.
However, he said that does not provide any real indication of progress.
Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne pointed out that if the Police Department truly wants to improve efficiency through crime raids, the number of cases filed in the following month should be lower than the number filed in the previous month.
He emphasized that an increase in cases within a police division actually reflects the inefficiency of the police officers responsible for that area.
Magistrate Gunaratne also warned that if senior police officers continue ordering junior officers to file more cases each month than the previous month, Sri Lanka’s population would be insufficient for the police to file cases within another five years.
The Magistrate stated that the court’s view is that police are using Section 54 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as a tactic to limit the court’s discretion in certain instances.
He emphasized that the ultimate result of this practice is the erosion of the court’s trust in police officers.
Magistrate Gunaratne further stated that senior police officers must immediately pay attention to this practice and change it.
He noted that although the Gampaha Senior Superintendent of Police was summoned to court to inquire into the matter, his failure to appear indicated serious carelessness regarding court proceedings.
The Magistrate pointed out that police had failed to present sufficient reasons as to why action should not be taken under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code over the oppressive filing of cases against the accused.
He ordered the police officers named as witnesses, who claimed to have conducted the raids in the two cases filed against the accused, to pay him compensation of Rs. 25,000 each.
Clear Instructions Issued to Police
The Magistrate also pointed out that a large amount of money from fines imposed under the Poisons, Opium, and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance is credited to the Police Gift Fund.
He decided that this fund should also be used in instances involving exploitative filing of cases.
Accordingly, the Magistrate ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000 each for the two exploitative cases filed against the accused, totaling Rs. 100,000.
He also ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the Inspector General of Police.
The Magistrate emphasized that the order was issued to draw attention to wrongful practices by police officers.
He further emphasized that these officers should not be subjected to disciplinary action.
Magistrate Bandula Gunaratne stated that if these police officers are subjected to any disciplinary action, then all senior officers who instructed them to conduct raids in such a manner should also be held accountable.
