ABHAYAGUNAVARDHANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases were posted today for further arguments, in view of the complication created by the order passed by the Court below (which is the Sessions Court of Kottayam) and we are grateful to Mr. K.T. Thomas, the appellants learned Advocate and Mr. Chacko, the learned Public Prosecutor for the assistance they have rendered in arguing all the different aspects of the case.

(2.) The question arises in respect of the prosecution that was started in Kottayam which culminated in the accused person whose name is Abhayagunavardhana being committed for trial to the Sessions Court of Kottayam. The offences mentioned in the charge are punishable under S.421 and 469, Travancore Penal Code. The facts are somewhat though not quite similar to the facts in Criminal Appeals Nos. 41 of 1124, 135, 136 and 137 of 1124 which came upon on appeal from the Sessions Court at Trivandrum. Accused 2 who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1124 is the accused in the present case tried by the Sessions Judge of Kottayam. We have, in dealing with Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1124, narrated in detail the facts that led up to the detection of crimes alleged to have been committed by the accused appellant in the present case in respect of certain spurious money orders which were transmitted from Ceylon. The accused appellant here has been convicted in the case that was brought against him in Trivandrum, the learned trial Judge holding that he has committed the offences of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In the case in Trivandrum the learned Judge also took the view that the evidence did not warrant a finding of guilty in respect of the offence of forgery which was also included in the charge. There the accused had resided in Trivandrum, according to the evidence for the prosecution, under the assumed name of Lionel Rajaratnam and there were money orders received by him in that name. He had admittedly signed these money orders and in these circumstances, the learned trial Judge held that the offence of forgery was not made out against him.

(3.) On a perusal of the Judgment of the Trial Court in the present case which has come up on appeal from the decision in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1950 in the Sessions Court at Kottayam, we notice that the facts are different in the following particulars. The real name of the accused is Abayaguna Vardhana and he had given that name in the Court below at the trial. Here also the spurious money orders had come from Ceylon for Rs. 500 each. Altogether there were 24 such money orders. They were all received in the Post Office at Kottayam and the addressee was Newton Sylva. We have to take the facts from the Judgment of the learned trial Judge and this is what he says in para 7 of his Judgment: