BONI HAMPANA GOWD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this case have been found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge of Anantapur under Secs.193 and 471, Indian Penal Code. They were prosecuted upon a complaint laid by the learned District Judge of Bellary, in which specific reference is made only to Section 193.

(2.) The facts are that the two appellants were being sued on a promissory note. They went to their Vakil for the purpose of preparing a written statement and took to him a bundle of receipts. The Vakil accordingly prepared a written statement, in which a plea of part, discharge was put forward and produced this written statement in Court along with the three receipts, Exs. C, D and E. Subsequently, however, the appellants remained ex parte and the suit against them was decreed upon the evidence of the plaintiff. It appeal's that the plaintiff was confronted by the Court with these receipts and asked to explain them. After some hesitation he contended that they were forged and subsequently the learned District Judge, as already stated, filed a complaint against the appellants in respect of these receipts.

(3.) On the facts there is no serious contest. It is admitted that these receipts were actually handed over by the appellants to their Vakil and it is admitted that the receipts are forged. Legal arguments have, however, been put forward. The first is that the evidence does not. establish that any substantive offence under, Section 193 has been committed by the appellants and that at most all of which they have been guilty must be the abetment of that offence. The learned Sessions Judge in para. 14 of his judgment seems to think, although he makes no specific reference to any such argument, that the appellants are guilty either of forging these receipts or of abetting that forgery. It seems to me on the evidence that there is no satisfactory proof that this forgery, which consists in the alteration of the English dates, could have been committed by the appellants themselves and that the offence which they have committed must have been an abetment of the forgery. He has been laid down in Padmanabha Bangikamaya V/s. Emperor 33 M 264 : 5 Ind. Cas. 145 : 7 M L T 79 : 20 M L J 84 : 11 Cr. L J 49, it is impossible for an Appellate Court in circumstances like these to alter a conviction into a conviction for an abetment. I must, therefore, find the appellants not guilty of an offence under Section 193 and acquit them on that charge.