097-NLR-NLR-V-45-CASSIM-Appellant-and-PERERA-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-Respondent.pdf
DE KRETSER J.—Cassim and Perera, Inspector of Police.
377
1942Present: de Kretser J.
CASSIM, Appellant, and PERERA, INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, Respondent.
303—M. M. G. Kandy, 30,542.
Soliciting in a publicplace—Meaningofexpression—VagrantsOrdinance
(Cap. 26), s. 7 (1) (a).
Where a person accosted two soldiers in a public place, pressed hisinvitation upon them and arranged a car to carry them to a brothel,
Held, that he was guilty of the offence of soliciting a person in a publicplace within the meaning of section 7(1)(a) of the Vagrants Ordinance..
Thiedeman v. Gunasekere {43 N. L. R. 143), distinguished and explained.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Municipal Magistrate of Kandy.
N.M. de Silva for the accused, appellant.
E. H. T. GunaseTcera, C.C., for the Crown, respondent.
June 16, 1942. de Kretser J.—
The conviction and sentence are affirmed. The facts of this case areentirely different from those in Thiedeman v. Gvnasehera1. There is onesentence in my judgment in that case which is unfortunately worded,perhaps. I did not mean to say that the person soliciting should proclaim,to the publie what he was doing. A person soliciting for the purpose-mentioned would carry on his conversation privately. However quietlyhe accosted a person who was a stranger to him, if he did so in a publicplace there would be publicity. It would be different if two persons-met by appointment and their conversation, instead of being on someordinary topic, happened to be regarding the matter for which they had.met, namely, some arrangement about women being procured for animmoral purpose. In the Negombo case the police drove up to the house-of the accused, who naturally came out to inquire what their mission was.
1 43 If. L R. 143
378
HOWARD C.J.—The King o. Themis Singho.
They were, for all practical purposes, in the same position as a person whomet another by appointment, for they knew that upon halting their carthere the occupant of the house would come out to meet them.
In the present case the accused accosted the two soldiers in a publicplace and, but for their detective instinct, would have caused themconsiderable annoyance. He pressed his invitation upon them, arrangedfor a car to convey them to the place he had in view—in short, it was not.only inviting patronage of a brothel but pressing the matter upon them.There was both earnestness and importunity.
Affirmed.