EMPEROR Vs. GANPAT BALKRISHNA RODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In ray opinion the case is a very clear one, and the learned Sessions Judge has fallen into errors both of law and of fact in reversing the careful judgment of the Magistrate, who tried this case and convicted the accused.

(2.) First, we have the admitted handwriting of the documents which consist of letters, deeds and post-cards. The hand-writting on them is admitted to be that of the accused. Now, comparing that handwriting in Modi with the Modi handwriting on the disputed letter, Exhibit 1 A, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that it is the accused s handwriting. The resemblance, in my opinion, is very close, and whoever is familiar with Modi handwriting must, I think, come to that conclusion. It is unnecessary for me to detail the reasons which have led me to that conclusion, but I may say in short that the matras, the cast of the writing, and the similarity of most of the letters, all are, in my opinion, a warrant for holding that the writer of Exhibit 1 A is the same as the writer of Exhibits J, I, K, and the post- cards (Exhibit G).

(3.) Then there is the evidence of the Postmaster. The learned Judge has not disbelieved him, at the same time he does not appear to have applied his mind to the testimony of that witness with the attention it deserved. I think that it is impossible to give any sound reason for setting aside the clear statements of the Postmaster, who is positive in affirming that he saw Nadkar post two letters, one of which happens to be Exhibit 1 A.