Back
ELIYATAMBY v. WIJEYLATH MENIKA
NLR36V300
1934 Present:
Akbar J.
ELIYATAMBY v. WIJEYLATH MENIKA
30-P. C. Negombo, 6,388
Brothel-Charge of keeping and managing a brothel-Single act of prostitution
insufficient-Ordinance No. 5 of 1889, s. 1 (1).
A single act of prostitution is insufficient to render a place a brothel.
There must be evidence that the premises were used as a place to which men
resort for purposes of prostitution.
APPEAL
from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of
Negombo.
L. A. Rajapakse, for accused, appellant.
March 13, 1934. AKBAR J.-
The accused in this case has been convicted by the learned Police Magistrate
of keeping and managing a brothel and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and also ordered to enter into a bond to be of good
behaviour for a period of twelve months. This appears to be her first offence,
if it is an offence.
It appears from the evidence that next door to the accused was the mistress of a
Police Constable who also figures as one of the witnesses in the police plaint.
This Police Constable's mistress appears to be on
angry terms with the accused (see
the evidence of the girl Mary). On November 3, 1933, the Sub-Inspector of Police
produced a man called Jokinu Fernando, who stated that the house which the
accused's husband occupied was a place where he had had women before for sexual
intercourse on payment and that he had done so on one or two previous occasions
and that there were two other women also available; he further stated that he
had seen other males also appearing at the house for the same purpose. Upon this
a search warrant was issued and the Inspector made use of Jokinu Fernando as a
decoy and gave him a marked Re. 1 note. The Police Inspector then raided the
place in the company of some Sergeants and Police Constables. In spite of these
Police Officers, if the Inspector is to be believed, he saw two women running
away from behind the house whom, he said, he could not make out because it was
rather dark. Why the other Police Officers did not give chase and arrest these
women is not explained. It almost looks as if this part of the evidence was the
necessary touch to make this house of the accused a brothel because the law
requires as a rule more than one woman. When the Police Inspector entered the
place he said he found Jokinu having intercourse with a woman called Mary and
that Jokinu told him that the accused had taken Re. 1 note as payment, that he
then searched Menika and found the Re. 1 note in her hand. I cannot understand
why he searched Menika if the Re. 1 was in her hand and why the accused should
have kept the Re. 1 clenched in her fist, whilst the Inspector was rushing into
the room to detect Jokinu and Mary together. However that may be, the next step
taken by the Inspector was extraordinary. He was so considerate enough to the
accused because there was no one to look after the house that he left her behind
and took this girl Mary to the Police Station. There he recorded her statement.
This is most extraordinary conduct on the part of a Police Officer. The search
warrant was issued for the purpose if raiding this place which was said to have
been run as a brothel by the accused's husband. The information given by the
Inspector and his informant Jokinu which led to the issue of the search warrant
was that it was this accused's husband who was running this brothel. The husband
was away from the house at the time, so it was necessary to make the wife the
person who was responsible for running the brothel. In any case the Inspector
left the woman to look after the house and took the girl away to the Police
Station. What the exact statement this girl Mary made to the police at the
Police Station I do not know, but she now comes forward and makes a long
rambling statement in which she said that she was visited by several persons in
the accused's house, that is, the woman Menika's,
