MAHALINGAYYA MUDDAYYA PUJARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Appeals 321, 326 and 327 of 1957 have been heard together. The appellant in these three appeals was the accused in Sessions Cases Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1957, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In the year 1952-53 and for some years prior to that, the accused was a Village Postman who was attached to Katkol Branch Post Office, which was under the Gokak Post Office. The village Chikop was within the beat of the accused. In the course of his duties as such postman he had been on trusted with three V. P. P. articles, each of them being of the value of Rs. 25/-and odd for delivery to the addressee Vaikuntha-swami or Venkataswami Nirupadimath. One of these three was parcel hearing No. 80, which is material for the purposes of Sessions Case No. 22 of 1957; the remaining two, namely parcel No. 74 and parcel No. 59 are dealt with in Sessions cases Nos. 23 and 24 respectively. In each of these cases, it had been alleged by the prosecution that the addressee was a fictitious person and that the accused had made on the receipts pertaining to these parcels, signatures pur-porting to be those of one Mallayaswami Nirupadi-math in token of the parcels having been delivered to the addressee Vaikunthaswami or Venkataswami Nirupadimath. The V. P. P. receipts on which the accused had been alleged to have forged the signatures were the receipt marked Ex. 18 in Sessions Case No. 22 of 3957, the receipt marked Ex. 24 in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1957 and the receipt marked Ex. 24 in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1957. The prosecution case was that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of these parcels and that he had committed forgery of a valuable security and had fraudulently or dis-honestly used the same as genuine and that he had thereby committed offences under Sections 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Coda. The accused was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of Ramdurg to take his trial before the Court of Sessions, for these offences. Accordingly, the accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Belgaum in the said three Sessions Cases. In each of these three cases, he had been charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 and 471 of the I. P. C. The accused had pleaded not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused in all the three cases. In each case he has convicted and sentenced tho accused to undergo vigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, for each of the three offences. He directed that the sentences should run concurrently. In each of these cases, he has also farther fined the accused a sum of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 467 of the I. P. C. and has directed that in default of the payment of the fine, the accused should undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. It is against these convic tions and sentences that the accused has preferred 'these: three appeals.

(2.) The entrustmeut of these three parcels to the accused for being delivered to the addressee, is proved by the evidence of the Branch Post-master Vecrappa Sindogi who has been examined as a prosecution witness in each of these three cases. He has stated that these parcels were entrusted to the accused for delivery to the addressee and that he has made entries to that effect in the "Branch Office Journal" and that the accused has signed in the said journal for having received these parcels. The accused also, does not deny having received these parcels. It is cleat from the statements made by the accused both before the Committing Magistrate and before the learned Sessions Judge, in the course of the examination under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C., that ho admits having been entrusted with these three parcels. The evidence of Vearappa Sindogi the Branch Post-master, also shows that after some time the accused returned the receipts Exs. 18, 24 and 24 together with the amounts which were payable in respect of these three parcels. This conduct on the part of the accused, clearly created a belief that tho parcels had been delivered to the addressee and the value thereof recovered from him. In the course of his examination under Section 342 of the Cr. P. C., by the Commit-ring Magistrate, the accused had stated as per Ex. 38 that parcel No. 80 had been given by him toVenkataswami. As per Ex. 34, the accused had also stated before the Committing Magistrate that he had delivered the parcel bearing. No. 59 to the addressee. As per Ex. 34, which is another statement of the accused before the committing Magistrate, he had stated that there was a person of the name of Vonkataswami. Madhav Mulagnnd the Police Sub-Inspector who had made the complaints before the Magistrate in these cases, gave evidence before; the Sessions Judge, to tho effect that there was no person of the name of Vaikuntaswami or Venkataswami Nirupadi Math. Laxman Couda Patil who had been officiating as Police Patil for Chikop for about 12 years gave evideanco before the Sessions Judge stating that there was no person in Chikop of the name of Venkataswami or Vaikunthaswami Nirupadimath, he had also made a report to that effect, as per Ex. 26 (in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1957). He, however, stated that there was a Math called Nirupadimath in Clikop and that one Mallayaswami stays in the said Math. During the cross-examination of these two witnesses, it had been suggested that there was a person of the name of Venkappa Kudsomanavar and that he used to be visiting Nirupadimath; it had also been suggested that he was called Venkataswami or Vaikuntha-swami. This Venkappa Kundsomanavar was examined as a witness for the prosecution, before the Sessions Judge; he denied that he was called either Venkataswami or Vaikunthaswami. He also stated that no Swami of tho name of Venkataswami or Vaikunthaswami lived in Nirupadi-Math. He stated that one Kallayaswami lives there. Mallayaswami Nirupadimath was also examined as a witness for the prosecution. He stated that his was the only family known by the name of Nirupadimath, in Chikop. He denied that there was any person of the name of Venkataswami or Vaikuntha-swami in his family. He stated that he had not ordered these V. P. articles and that nobody had requested him to take delivery of these three parcels. He denied that the signatures on the receipts Exs. 18 and 24 (Ex. 24) in two cases were his. When the learned Sessions Judge questioned the accused with reference to the evidence of these two witnesses, the accused stated that one Mallaya who was different from the prosecution witness Mallayaswami had received these parcels for and on behalf of Venkataswami, he also stated that Venkataswami was the same as the prosecution witness Venkappa. The evidence of the complainant Police Sub-Inspector, Laxmangouda Patil, Mallayaswami Nirupadimath and Venkappa Kudaomanavar clearly shows that there was no person at Chikop of the name of Venkataswami or Vaikunthaswami Nirupadimath. These parcels could not, therefore, have been delivered to the addressee. The prosecution did not stop there, but proceeded further to establish that tho signatures on the three V. P. P. receipts Exs. 18, 24 and 24 which had been denied by Mallayaswami Nirupadimath as being his, were really in the handwriting of the accused. For this purpose, the prosecution examined Maheshwar Wagh who was a handwriting Expert attached to the Criminal Investigation Deportment of Bombay. He compared the signatures in Exs. 18, 24 and 24 with the handwriting in Exs. 8 to 16. These exhibits viz., 8 to 16 were the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused; it is seen from the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector Malgund that he had taken these specimen handwriting and signatures in the presence of the Panchas on 10-6-1953. In the course of his examination by the Sessions Judge, the accused has admitted that Exs. 8 to 16 are in his handwriting. The Handwriting Expert Wagh has given evidence to the effect that in his opinion the signatures on Exs. 18, 24 and 24 are in the same hand as the writings and signatures in Exs. 8 to 16. He has stated in his evidence that he has examined more than twenty thousand disputed documents and he seems to be a man of considerable experience in the identification of handwritings. In Ex. 35, he has given detailed reasons in support of his opinion in regard to the signatures on Exs. 18, 34 and 24. Nothing has been elicited in the course of his cross-examination to show as to why his opinion should not be accepted. In regard to the two exhibits marked 24, there is also the further evidence of the Branch Postmaster Veerappa Sindogi that the endorsements in Kannada thereon, are by the accused. He is a person who was accustomed to see the handwriting of the accused and there is no reason why due weight should not be attached to his evidence. It was contended by Sri JavaJi the learned Advocate for the appellant that Exs. 8 to 16. are hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that, therefore, these documents are inadmissible in evidence. His contention is that these specimen writings are all in the nature of statements falling within the scope of Section 162 of the Cr, P.C. In support of his contention, Sri Javali relied on the following observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision of Ramkishan v. State of Bombay, AIR1955 SC 104 , (1955 )57 BOMLR 600 , 1955 CriLJ196 , [1955 ]1 SCR903 :

(3.) It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that comparison of handwriting as a mode of proof is hazardous and that the learned Sessions Judge should not have placed any reliance on the opinion evidence of the Handwriting Expert. The Handwriting Expert who has been examined in this case, appears to be a man of considerable experience. He has given detailed reasons for reaching the conclusion that the disputed writing is in the same hand as the writings admitted by the accused to be his. Nothing has been elicited in the course of the cross-examination of the Handwriting Expert to east any suspicicn cither on his competency or his impartiality. Further, there is "also the evidence of the Branch Postmaster Veerappa Sindogi, who was acquainted with the handwriting of the accused, to show that the disputed writings on the receipts arc those of the accused. The accused had these receipts in his custody and ha certainly had the opportunity to make these writings; this is rendered further probable by the fact that the addressee is a fictitious person and Mallayaswami Nirpadimath who admittedly resides in this Math has denied the handwriting of the receipts as being his. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention on behalf of the appellant that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in having reached the conclusion that the disputed writing on these receipts were in the hand of the accused.