G S RAMASWAMI AYYAR Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has been convicted of an offence punishable under Sections 467 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code in the alternative, the forgery being alleged as consisting in certain alterations in Exhibit B made after its execution by second prosecution witness and accused, the result being the making of a false document, purporting to be a valuable security. Both learned Judges, before whom the appeal originally came, held that the alterations were so made by accused; and nothing now advanced leads me to dissent from this conclusion. The questions, to which the argument has been mainly directed before me, are: (1) whether the alterations were made dishonestly or fraudulently, (2) whether they could amount to forgery either of a document or a valuable security, if, as is alleged, they were made before the completion of the document and (3) whether the sentence is excessive.

(2.) One contention on the first of these questions, that accused made the alterations, intending to get second prosecution witness s consent to them before obtaining the other signatures, which, it is said, would make the document effective, can be dealt with shortly. For it was not put forward at the trial, or so far as I can judge, at the original hearing of the appeal. And the reason is clear. Accused then put forward the case, to which he adhered before me, that the alterations were made before second prosecution witness signed; and he adduced evidence in support of it, which, if believed, negatives the contention under consideration. So also, so far as it goes, does the evidence for the prosecution. In these circumstances I pass at once to the argument that the alterations were not made fraudulently or dishonestly, because they represented what accused in good faith believed to be the truth and intended to use to support what in good faith he claimed or might claim. That this defence is open to him is entailed by the decisions in Queen-Empress v. Syed Hussain (1885) I.L.R., 7 All., 403, Queen-Empress v. Sheo Dyal (1885) I.L.R., 7 All., 459, Queen v. Kishan Pershad (1870) 2 N.W.P.H.C.R., 202 and Manicka Asari v. Emperor (1915) M.W.N., 278. But, when, as is pointed out in the two last cited cases, the result is to exempt the accused from liability in respect of extremely reprehensible conduct, the facts must be scrutinised closely and the legitimacy of his claim or his good faith in its assertion must be established clearly. The question is one of fact and reference to the evidence is therefore necessary.

(3.) [His Lordship then dealt with the evidence and found that the additions to Exhibit B were made fraudulently and dishonestly and continued:]