DRIEBERG J.—Leembruggen- v. Silva.
1932v Present: Drieberg J.
LEEMBRUGGEN v. SILVA.
27—M.C. Colombo, 10,053.
Vagrants Ordinance—Soliciting in a public place—Illicit intercourse—Ordinance No. 4 of 1841, s. 7 (1) (a).
The expression “illicit” in section 7 (1) (a) of the Vagrants Ordinancemeans irregular and improper according to the ordinary standard ofmorals.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Municipal Magistrate of Colombo.
Iyer, for accused, appellant.
Wendt, C.C., for respondent.
May 31, 1932. Drieberg J.—
The evidence is that the respondent and another Police Inspector whowere in civil clothes halted their car at night in Norris Canal road; theappellant came up to them and offered, to get them two women for Rs. 5each and he later brought two.women to their car. The appellant wasconvicted under section 7 (1) (a) of the Vagrants Ordinance, No. 4 of 1841,which is an amendment effected by Ordinance No. 21 of 1919, of havingsolicited the respondent in a public place for the purpose of an act ofillicit intercourse. He appeals from this conviction.
The conviction was questioned on several grounds but the only one Ineed deal with is this. Mr. Iyer contended that the word “ illicit ” means“ illegal, or prohibited by law ” and that the only sexual intercourseprohibited by law is incest and intercourse with girls below a certain ageand that this was not the case here. But the word “ illicit ” meansmore than this. It is defined in the. Oxford Dictionary as “ notauthorized or allowed, improper, irregular, especially not sanctioned bylaw or custom, unlawful, forbidden ”. The word occurs in an Ordinancethe declared object of which is to amend and settle certain enactmentsrelating to public morals and the protection of women and girls. Theword “ illicit ” used in this connection rightly describes sexual intercourseof men with women picked up in the streets, for this is irregular andimproper according to the ordinary standard of morals.
The word is used in the same sense in section 357 of the Penal Code,which deals with the offence of kidnapping a woman in order to force orseduce her to illicit intercourse. It has been held in India that the wordsin the corresponding section 306 of the Indian Penal Code meant merelysexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not husband andwife (Mahbub (1907) 27 A. W. N. 199). The report is not available.A reference to this decision appears in Ratnalal’s Law of Crimes, 10thedition, p. 757.
The appeal is dismissed.
LEEMBRUGGEN v. SILVA