SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DHARMADASA v. THIEDEMAN


Dharmadasa V. Thiedeman

1950 Present: Nagalingam J.

DHARMADASA,
Appellant, and THIEDEMAN (Inspector of Police),
Respondent

S. C. 391-M. C. Gampola, 19,474

Soliciting-Meaning of expression-Vagrants Ordinance (Cap. 26), s. 7 (1) (as).

The term " soliciting " in section 7 (1) (a) of the Vagrants Ordinance need not necessarily be confined to cases where an appeal is made earnestly or is pressed. It is wide enough to cover the case where a person is invited or even where an offer is made coupled with not necessarily an express but an implied invitation.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Gampola.

M. M Kumarakulasingham, with J. C. Thurairatnam, for accused appellant.

S. S. Wijesinha, Crown Counsel, for, the Attorney-General.

Cur, adv. vult.

July 11, 1965. NAGALINGAM J.-

The appellant in this case has been convicted by the learned Magistrate at Gampola of having committed an offence under section 7 (1) (a) of the Vagrants Ordinance (Cap. 26 of the Legislative Enactments) and sentenced to undergo a term of three months' rigorous imprisonment. The only point that was pressed on appeal was whether the facts testified to by the prosecution witnesses












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top