PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. RAMARAZU VENKATAPPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit F even according to the defence is forged document, as the defence was that the date "2nd October 1910" was dishonestly altered into 22nd October 1910 through the machinations of the prosecution 9th witness, in whose house the 1st accused alleges that he had left it for safe custody.

(2.) That Exhibit F was used by the 1st accused (respondent in this appeal) in the suit brought by him on it is clear. Unless the date "22nd October 1910" could be established for the pro- note, his suit brought on 22nd October 1913 would be barred.

(3.) It is impossible to believe hi statement that he did not know of the alteration when he gave in to his Vakil (P.W. No. 2) to file a suit on the 21st October 1913. The learned Sessions Judge rightly disbelived the defence story that prosecution 9th witness altered the date in collusion with prosecution 1st witness without the 1st accused?s knowledge.