Chandana Prasanna Suwadarathna vs The Hon. Attorney General – CA HCC 0028/2024-2025

The case involved an appeal by Chandana Prasanna Suwadarathna (Accused-Appellant) against his conviction for procuring individuals to become prostitutes under section 360A(1) of the Penal Code. The central legal issue was the interpretation of ‘procure’ and the adequacy of prosecution evidence. It was held that the conviction was to be set aside and the appellant acquitted. This decision reaffirmed the principle, established in *Rosemary Judy Perera vs Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka*, that ‘procure’ under section 360A applies to bringing a person not already involved in prostitution into it, not merely facilitating voluntary engagement. The findings emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant actively managed or initiated the individuals’ decision to engage in