Present: Jayewardene A.J.

SAIBO v. CHELLAM et al.

413-P.O. Jaffna, 22,591.

Prostitution-Women earning a living by prostitution--Ordinance No. 4 of 1841, as amended by Ordinance No. 21 of 1919, s. 9 (1) (a).

Prostitution is not an offence per se under our law.

Section 9, sub-section 1 (a), of Ordinance No. 4 of 1841, as amended by Ordinance No. 21 of 1919, does not penalize prostitutes living on their own earnings.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Arulanandam, for the appellants.-The accused was charged under section 9 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1841 as amended by Ordinance No. 21 of 1919. The facts show that she was leading the life of a prostitute. That is not an offence under the Ordinance. See Police Sergeant, Tangalla, v. Porthenis,[1 (1920) 22 N. L. R. 163. ] Appuhamy v. Emanis.[2 (1921) 23 N. L. R. 160.]

July 27,1923. JAYEWARDENE A.J.-

In this case two women who are said to be prostitutes have been convicted under section 9, sub-section (1) (a), of Ordinance No. 4 of 1841, as amended by Ordinance No. 21 of 1919, of having knowingly lived on the earnings of prostitution and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. They appea