The main legal point established in the judgment is that wrongful gain and dishonest misappropriation constitute forgery and criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code.

IN RE: MAHALINGAYYA MUDDAYYA PUJARI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

( 1 ) THE Criminal Appeals 321, 326 and 327 of 1957 have been heard together. The appellant in these three appeals was the accused in Sessions Cases Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1957, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Belgaum. In the year 1952-53 and for some years prior to that, the accused was a Village Postman who was attached to Katkol Branch Post Office, which was under the gokak Post Office. The village Chikop was within the beat of the accused. In the course of his duties as such postman he had been on trusted with three V. P. P. articles, each of them being of the value of rs. 25/-and odd for delivery to the addressee Vaikuntha-swami or Venkataswami Nirupadimath. One of these three was parcel hearing No. 80, which is material for the purposes of Sessions case No. 22 of 1957; the remaining two, namely parcel No. 74 and parcel No. 59 are dealt with in Sessions cases Nos. 23 and 24 respectively. In each of these cases, it had been alleged by the prosecution that the addressee was a fictitious person and that the accused had made on the receipts pertaining to these parcels, signatures pur-porting to be those of one Mallayaswami Nirupadi-math in token of the parcels having been delivered to the addressee Vaikunthaswami or Venkataswami Nirupadimath. The V. P. P. receipts on which the accused had been alleged to have forged the signatures were the receipt marked Ex. 18 in Sessions Case No. 22 of 3957, the receipt marked Ex. 24 in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1957 and the receipt marked Ex. 24 in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1957. The prosecution case was that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of these parcels and that he had committed forgery of a valuable security and had fraudulently or dis-honestly used the same as genuine and that he had thereby committed offences under sections 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Coda. The accused was committed by the Judicial magistrate of Ramdurg to take his trial before the Court of Sessions, for these offences. Accordingly, the accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Belgaum in the said three Sessions Cases. In each of these three cases, he had been charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 and 471 of the I. P. C. The accused had pleaded not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused in all the three cases. In each case he has convicted and sentenced tho accused to undergo vigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, for each of the three offences. He directed that the sentences should run concurrently. In each of these cases, he has also farther fined the accused a sum of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 467 of the I. P. C. and has directed that in default of the payment of the fine, the accused should undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. It is against these convic tions and sentences that the accused has preferred 'these: three appeals.

( 2 ) THE entrustmeut of these three parcels to the accused for being delivered to the addressee, is proved by the evidence of the Branch Post-master Vecrappa Sindogi who has been examined as a prosecution witness in each of these three cases. He has stated that these parcels were entrusted to the accused for delivery to the addressee and that he has made entries to that effect in the "branch Office Journal" and that the accused has signed in the said journal for having received these parcels. The accused also, does not deny having received these parcels. It is cleat from the statements made by the accused both before the Committing Magistrate and before the learned Sessions Judge, in the course of the examination under Section 342 of the cr. P. C. , that ho admits having been entrusted with these three parcels. The evidence of Vearappa sindogi the Branch Post-master, also shows that after some time the accused returned the receipts Exs. 18, 24 and 24 together wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document