Present: De Sampayo A.J.

PERERA v. ALI TAMBY.

Is pepper " produce " ?-Ordinance No. 9 of 1885-Must produce be the produce of a "plantation. " for conviction under s. 4 ?

Pepper is not " produce " within the meaning of Ordinance No. 9 of 1885.

For a conviction under section 4 of the Ordinance there must be proof that the produce in question is the produce of a plantation.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.-There is no evidence whatever to show that the accused knew the cooly was a " labourer." Pepper is not a produce which is contemplated by the Ordinance. There is no proof that the pepper came from the estate of the complainant.

V. Grenier, for the respondent.-The definition of " produce " in Ordinance No. 9 of 1885 is not exhaustive. The term used in the definition is " includes." Though pepper is not specially mentioned" in the definition, it is proved in this case to be a produce of plantations in the district. [De Sampayo A.J.-It is more or less a wild creeper in these districts.] But it is cultivated in plantations for commercial purposes.

It is not necessar