S. Perera vs Perera – clr volume 2 page 006_1

In the case between the accused individuals (defendants) and the Crown, the court addressed whether the defendants’ conduct constituted an offense under Ordinance No. 17 of 1889, focusing on the statutory meaning of “access” to a “public place” in the context of unlawful gaming. It was held that the charge was insufficiently framed, failing to specify an actionable offense under the Ordinance. The court reaffirmed the principle that “public place” and “access” under the Ordinance require a legal right or permission to enter, not mere trespass or unauthorized entry. This decision relied on the proper statutory interpretation of Ordinance No. 17 of 1889, emphasizing that the scope of criminal liability is not to be expanded by an overly broad reading of legislative terms, thus safeguarding d