– While delivering the judgment, the High Court Judge underscored the far-reaching consequences of corruption in State institutions, observing that such misconduct not only damages the country’s economy but has also contributed to its economic downfall.

The judge further noted that corruption within public institutions weakens public trust and confidence in those entrusted with serving the people. Emphasising the broader impact of such offences, the court highlighted the need to hold public officials accountable in order to protect both the integrity of State institutions and the public’s faith in them.Former Deputy Minister Sarana Gunawardena, who was found guilty in four corruption cases, was sentenced by Colombo High Court Judge Mohomed Mihal to four years’ imprisonment on each count. Accordingly, the court ordered that the accused serve a total of 16 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court Judge sentenced the accused to four years’ rigorous imprisonment on each of the 18 charges. Although the combined prison terms amounted to 72 years, the court ordered that the sentences for the charges within each case run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of four years for each of the four cases. The four case sentences were ordered to run consecutively, requiring Sarana Gunawardena to serve a total of 16 years’ rigorous imprisonment.In addition, he was ordered to pay fines amounting to Rs. 1.8 million in respect of the four cases.

The indictments had been filed by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption under Section 70 of the Bribery Act of 1954, alleging the offence of “corruption.” The cases were instituted in 2022.The accused had arranged to obtain three vehicles on a rental basis and unlawfully used funds belonging to the Development Lotteries Board to make the advance payments required for the transactions. While serving as the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Accounting Officer of the Development Lotteries Board, the accused had induced public officials to facilitate the commission of this corrupt act.

The prosecution alleged that, as advance payments for the three vehicles, the accused authorized payments of Rs. 1.56 million, Rs. 1.521 million and Rs. 960,000, respectively, using funds of the Development Lotteries Board, with the intention of conferring an undue benefit on an external party. It was further alleged that the accused’s actions caused a financial loss to the State.The court held that the accused, while functioning as Chairman of the Development Lotteries Board, Chief Executive Officer and Accounting Officer, had acted with the intention of causing unlawful benefit to another party and thereby causing a loss to the State.Delivering the judgment, the trial judge stated that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused loss to the State by acting in a manner that conferred benefits on the owners of the three vehicles procured on a rental basis while serving as Chairman of the Development Lotteries Board in 2006.

Appearing for the defense, Counsel Ranjan Silva urged court to impose a lenient sentence. He submitted that the accused was 62 years old, had completely retired from politics, was presently engaged in business activities and had no intention of returning to politics. Counsel accordingly requested the court to exercise leniency in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Thereafter, Counsel Asitha Anthony, appearing for the prosecution, submitted that the accused should be punished in a manner that would serve as a deterrent and set an example to society.

“Your honour, this is an offence relating to corruption. Such corrupt acts committed by public officials serving in State institutions contributed to the economic collapse experienced by the country in recent times. As a result, people had to stand in queues for gas and fuel. Although public officers entrusted with public funds are duty-bound to safeguard those funds, this accused had encouraged public officials to engage in corrupt activities. The corrupt acts of a small number of individuals affect the entire country. I respectfully request that a sentence be imposed on the accused in a manner that would serve as an example to public officials who engage in such corrupt conduct.”Although the defense sought leniency under Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when sentencing the accused, the court held that there was no basis to exercise such discretion in circumstances where the accused had been found guilty of the charges and proceeded to impose the sentence.

The judge then detailed the sentences imposed in each case as follows:Case HC 202/22: The accused was convicted on six charges. He was sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment on each charge, amounting to an aggregate of 24 years. However, the six sentences were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of four years for that case.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs. 100,000 on each of the six charges, amounting to a total fine of Rs. 600,000.

HC 203/22: The accused was convicted on four charges and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment on each charge, amounting to an aggregate of 16 years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of four years for that case.The accused was acquitted on two charges in that indictment.

The court further imposed a fine of Rs. 100,000 on each of the four charges, amounting to a total fine of Rs. 400,000.

HC 205/22: The accused was convicted on six charges. He was sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment on each charge, amounting to an aggregate of 24 years. Those sentences were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of four years for that case.

The court imposed a fine of Rs. 100,000 on each of the six charges, amounting to a total fine of Rs. 600,000.

HC 206/22: The accused was convicted on two charges and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment on each charge, amounting to an aggregate of eight years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of four years for that case.The court imposed fines totaling Rs. 200,000 in relation to the two charges.

Accordingly, while the total of all individual prison terms imposed on the 18 convictions amounted to 72 years, the manner in which the sentences were structured by the court resulted in an effective sentence of 16 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

After pronouncing sentence, the trial judge made the following observations:

“Corruption occurring within State institutions causes prejudice to the country’s economy and has contributed to economic bankruptcy. Such corrupt activities in public institutions also undermine public confidence in those institutions. The evidence led by the prosecution has established that the accused committed the offence of corruption while functioning as Chairman and Accounting Officer of a State institution in terms of Section 70 of the Bribery Act. Having considered the nature of this offence, the court is required to impose a sentence that would discourage corruption in public institutions.”

The judge made these remarks while delivering the judgment and imposing sentence on the accused.