K K SWAMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are against the conviction and sentence of the two appellants at the Fourth Criminal Sessions, 1955, the 2nd accused being the appellant in criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1956 and the first accused being the appellant in criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1956. Leave to appeal was granted under Section 411-A (1) (a) and (b), Criminal P. C. , by this Court.

(2.) THE first accused Raghavan was charged under Sections 419 and 467, I. P. C. , for having cheated one Pushparaj, a postman attached to the Saida-pet post office, by pretending to be one Krishnan and inducing the said Pushparaj to deliver to him Rs. 25 covered by T. M. O. No. 2637 dated 23-12-1854 intended for the said Krishnan and in the course of the same transaction for having forged the receipt and acknowledgment in the said T. M. O. The second accused K. K. Swami was charged with having abetted the commission of the said offence and therefore committed offences punishable under Sections 419 and 457 read with Section 114, I. P. C. The first accused pleaded guilty. The 2nd accused entered a plea of "not guilty. " A jury was empanelled and the trial was proceeded with. The 2nd accused was defended by counsel. The first accused was not defended and did not cross-examine the witnesses and did not otherwise take part in the trial. After the close of the evidence, his statement was recorded under Section 342, criminal P. C. , and he was questioned by Court as to whether he heard the evidence of the postman Fushparaj that he came with the money order to krishnan and that the first accused impersonated as Krishnan and received the money order, to which his answer was he had nothing to say about it. A further question was put to him that he stated in the lower court that he received the money order, and his answer was that it was true that he signed as Krishnan. When he was further asked whether he wished to say anything more, he said he had nothing further to say and that he had no defence witnesses to examine. The jury put him a question as to whether he could say the denomination of the money which he received as Rs. 5, Rs. 2 or Re. 1 and his answer was he did not remember.

(3.) IN the charge to the jury the learned Judge stated that there were two accused in this case and after referring to the charges proceeded to state as follows: