This case related to the prescriptive period for defilement of minors as a continuous offence. The first part of Article 689 of the Criminal Code is clear and unequivocal in that for the purposes of prescription regard shall only be had to the punishment for which the crime is ordinarily subject. The second part is not as clear, has given rise and will give rise to further uncertainties unless itis clearly amended by the legislator. Clarity of legislation is essential for the obvious reasons including the right of a child on attainment of majority who should be further protected by the legislator especially in this age where allegations such as that under review are unfortunately commonplace. In this case prescription was applied.