( 1W )
^resent: Sohneider A.J.
APPUHAMY v. EMAN1S et al.638—639—M. C. Colombo, 3,382,
Ordinance No* 21 of 1919, s. 9—Living on the earnings of prostitution—
To sustain a conviction of knowing/ living on the A^minga ofprostitution tinder sectionof Ordinance No. 21 of 1919,
proof that, on a single occasion, accused brought a woman forprostitution was heUi not sufficient.
“ Ttere is no evidence which would justify the raising of the'^tfft&umption created by sub-section (2), because there is no evidencein this case that the woman was a prostitute, nor is there anyevidence to show that the accused lived wholly or in part on theearnings of prostitution.*’
f |THE foots appear from the judgment.
De Jong, for the appellant.
July 8, 1921. Sohneidbib A.J.—
The evidence which the learned Magistrate has accepted is thata Police Constable saw the accused standing by a “ passenger,” whowas in a rickshaw, which was stopped by the gate of the Huhupitiyapark; that the accused went away, and within a few minutesreturned to the park with a woman, with whom the “ passenger ”had sexual intercourse while the accused stood on a side. Uponthis evidence the Magistrate convicted the accused of knowinglyliving on the earnings of prostitution, an offence punishable undersection 9 (1) (a) of Parti, of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance,No. 21 of 1919. The Magistrate statesih his judgment that, in viewof the provisions of section 9 (2) of that Ordinance, the accused mustbe deemed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution.There is no evidence which would justify the raising of the presump-tion created by that subjection, because there is no evidence in thiscase that the woman was a prostitute, nor is there any evidence toshow that the accused b'ved wholly or in part bn the earnings ofprostitution. A single isolated fact, such as is spoken to by thePolice Constable, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction underthe provisions of the Ordinance under which the accused has beenconvicted.
T .' * therefore, set aside the conviction, and acquit the accused.
APPUHAMY v. EMANIS et al