IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal in terms of section 331 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No- 15 of 1979, read with Articles 138 and 154 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Court of Appeal No: Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CA/HCC/0202/17 COMPLAINANT Vs.

High Court of Colombo Maji Senadheera Case No: HC/5922/11 ACCUSED AND NOW BETWEEN Maji Senadheera ACCUSED-APPELLANT Vs.

The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : Asthika Devendra with Kaneel Maddumage for the Accused Appellant : Udara Karunathilaka, SSC for the Respondent Argued on : 03-08-2023 Written Submissions : 28-07-2023 (By the Accused-Appellant)

: 06-02-2019 (By the Respondent)

Decided on : 20-11-2023 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

The accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was indicted before the High Court of Colombo for the offence procuration of a female on or about 28-02-2006 in Kollupitiya, within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Colombo to become a prostitute, and thereby committing an offence punishable in terms of section 360A(1) of the Penal Code as amended by Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 22 of 1995.

After trial, the appellant was convicted as charged by the learned High Court Judge of Colombo of the Judgement dated 28-02-2017, and was sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment period of 3 years. She was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50000/- and in default, she was sentenced for a period of 1-year rigorous imprisonment.

Being aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal.

The facts as revealed in evidence before the High Court can be briefly summarized as follows.

Facts in brief PW-01 was serving as a police inspector attached to the Foreshore police station during the time relevant to this incident. He has received an information about an operation of a brothel house (ගණිකා නිවාසයක්) at No. 49 A, Dickman place, Kollupitiya.

After assembling a team of officers to conduct a raid in that regard, and after having obtained a search warrant from the Fort Magistrate’s Court, he has proceeded to conduct the raid. He has chosen two police officers, Bandara and Wimalasena and has given Rs. 2000/- to police officer Wimalasena, instructing him to go to the place where the prostitution operation was going on and obtain the services of a female by paying money to the manager of the place.

Police officer Bandara has been instructed to accompany Wimalasena, and send a signal to PW-01 when the deal is complete.

The aforementioned Wimalasena and Bandara has gone into the house and had met up with the appellant who was the person in charge of the operation. There had been 11 females in the company of the appellant. Officer Wimalasena has given money to the appellant and upon the direction by her, has chosen one of the females paraded. He has been directed to go to a cubicle which had no door, but only a covering.

According to the evidence of Wimalasena, once they were inside, the female had removed her clothes, and while she was in the process of removing his shirt, he has given a pre-arranged signal to Bandara who was seated outside in the hall. The officer Bandara in turn has sent a signal to PW-01 who was outside of the house on the main road, indicating that the transaction has been completed. Accordingly, PW-01 and his team has entered the house and arrested the manager who was the appellant, the female who was with police officer Wimalasena and other females who were in the house.

At the scene of the alleged crime, the PW-01 and his team has recovered the money paid by officer Wimalasena to the appellant in a drawer of the table where the appellant was seated and several condoms as well.

The charge of procuration against the appellant has been framed based on the above facts.

The prosecution has led the e