T C MUTHUSWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE bags of rice purchased at Ranipet in North Arcot district were transported through the T. V. S. lorry on the 22nd May 1966 under cover of a permit Ex. P. 1 purporting to have been issued by the District supply Officer North Arcot, one Mr. Srinivasan, P. W. 1, who was in charge of the checkpost at Kannamangalam, suspected Ex. P. 1 to be a spurious permit. He unloaded, the bags, seized the permit and then sent a report to the Tahsildar, investigation followed and P. W. 21, the Inspector attached to the Vigilance cell, detected that the permit was a spurious one not issued by the District supply Officer. P. W. 7, the broker who had purchased these bags on behalf of the person who actually transported them, pointed out the house of this petitioner. M. O. 4 box was opened with the Key produced by this petitioner. M. O. 6 (forms ). M. Os. 7, 8, 9 & 10 (Government seals) M. O. 11 (rubber stamp for the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Arkonam ). M. O. 12 (block of the Taluk officer at Cheyyar) M. O. 13. (fascimile of Mr. Srinivasan) and M. O. 16 (another rubber stamp of the Taluk Office. Wallajan) were found in the box M. O. 15 series (cash of Rs. 5619) also were in it. These items were seized under the search list Ex. P. 23. The petitioner was charged along with one Subramaniam (accused No. 1) for offences under Sections 466, 468, 471, 420 and 474 read with Section 109 I. P. C. The Assistant Sessions Judge Vellore, convicted them under Sections 466, 468, 471, 420, 473 and 474 I. P. C. and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 300/- on each count (the sentences to run concurrently ). On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge at vellore, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused under Sections 466, 468, 473 and 474 I. P. C. The conviction and sentence on both the accused for offences under Sections 471 and 420 I. P. C. were set aside. The conviction of the second accused under Section 474 read with Section 109 I. P. C. together with the sentences imposed on him, were confirmed by him. The petitioner in this revision canvasses the correctness of this conviction.

(2.) THE courts below have found that the permit Ex. P. 1 is a spurious one. THE further finding is that the first accused had forged the signature of the District Supply Officer in Ex. P. 1. With this finding, the first accused has been convicted for offences under Section 466 and 468 I. P. C. THE petitioner, viz. the second accused, stands acquitted of these charges, because his handwriting was not found in any part of the permit Ex. P. 1. THE further finding is that the counterfeit forms and seals were made only by the first accused and as such he has been convicted for offences under Sections 473 and 474 I. P. C. THE learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 473 read with Section 109 I. P. C. observing that there is no evidence connected him either with the making of the forged document Ex. P. 1, or with the making of the forged forms. (M. O. 6 series) and the various rubber stamp seals. But he has confirmed the conviction under Section 474 i. P. C. because M. O. 2 series, and M. Os. 6 to 14 and 16 were recovered from the box M. O. 4, which was opened with the key produced by him.