STATE Vs. RAMKUMAR RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts sought to be proved by the prosecution are that the accused Ram kumar had some cases pending before Mr. Harak Chand, a Municipal Magistrate, basoda, in these cases he had been granted some adjournments and he was required to appear on 30-6-1952. In order to avoid appearing before the Municipal magistrate on the above date, he is said to have resorted to the device of sending a telegram, a day earlier, from Bhilsa to Mr. Harak Chand on behalf of Mr. Datar, who was Mr. Harak Chand's counsel in a personal case pending at Bhilsa. The telegram required the immediate presence of Mr. Harak Chand and runs thus:--'harakchand Oswal, Basoda. Come immediately first train. Datar. " on receiving this telegram, the recipient left for Bhilsa and when he reached there, he found that his counsel was out of station. When Mr. Datar returned to Bhilsa he lodged a report with the Police on 3-7-52.

(2.) IN the course of investigation, the Police took out an application alleged to have been written by the accused from the file of one of the cases pending before the municipal Magistrate, and, taking the accused to the Tahsildar, who is a Second class Magistrate, made the accused copy out that application in the presence of the Tahsildar. This writing was compared with the writing on the telegraph form by a Hand-writing Expert. The Expert, Mr. Gupta was of opinion that the telegram was in the handwriting of the accused. The trial Court held that there was no satisfactory evidence to hold the accused guilty and that it was not prepared to convict the accused merely on the evidence of a hand-writing expert. It also said that even if it be assumed that the telegram was written by the accused, there is no proof of the fact that the accused caused the telegram to be transmitted, which alone would make it an offence under section 29, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The trial Court in consequence acquitted the accused and the Government has filed this appeal under Section 417, Criminal p. C. , against the order of acquittal.

(3.) ON going through the record I find that the Sub-Post Master, who accepted the telegram does not say that it was the accused who came to the Post Office to dispatch it. He says that he cannot recognise the person who brought the telegram for being transmitted.