17 July 2021 12:00 am Views - 199
A woman who made a false complaint to Supreme Court targeting a female lawyer over her professional conduct was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.300,000 by Supreme Court.
The respondent Bandumali Jayasinghe, a resident of Colombo 7 was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment suspended for a period of five years for making false representations to the Supreme Court knowing them to be false and thereby attempting to mislead the Court amounts to Contempt of Court.
Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justice Murdu Fernando observed that the respondent had attempted to mislead the Court amounts to Contempt of Court as it is a direct interference with the administration of justice.
Lawyers of the respondent was further directed to tender a written apology to Attorney-at-Law Ms. Niduk Perera with regard to the false or baseless allegations made against her.
Justice Preethi Padman Surasena while agreeing with two other judges, delivered a separate judgement sentencing the woman to three years rigorous imprisonment.
However, the respondent would be subjected to a suspended imprisonment by the majority decision of Supreme Court three-judge-bench.
On January 21, 2014, respondent Bandumali Jayasinghe by way of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice made a complaint against Attorney-at-Law Ms. Niduk Perera. The respondent alleged that her ex-husband had filed action on February 1, 2008 seeking a divorce from her. On May 15, 2008 Niduk Perera had tendered a proxy for and on behalf of her and had also filed answer claiming that instructions had been given by her to do so. Bandumali Jayasinghe had asserted in the complaint that she had no knowledge of the divorce action. The respondent further said she had never met Niduk Perera nor had she ever retained the services of Niduk Perera in a divorce action.
She further alleged that Niduk Perera had tendered a forged proxy on her behalf and had filed answer without her instructions. The respondent alleged that Niduk Perera had also permitted her ex-husband to obtain an ex-parte decree in his favour.
The Professional Purposes Committee of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka had held an extensive inquiry into the complaint made by respondent and reported to the Supreme Court of their findings by their report dated January 27, 2015.