Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
N. K. Sen, D. N. Das Gupta
TARINI KUMAR PANDAY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 395 Of 1958
Decided On : AUGUST 4, 1959
CRIMINAL LAW - FORGERY - SPECIMEN HANDWRITING - ADMISSIBILITY - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 114 - DIRECTION TO JURY - LEGALITY OF CONVICTION - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 20(3).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of forgery and cheating for forging two money orders and using them to obtain money from the complainant. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had requested the complainant to accept two money orders in the names of the complainant's family members and to hand over the money to him. The appellant had also given the complainant two letters of authority authorizing the complainant's family members to accept the money orders. The complainant accepted the money orders and gave the money to the appellant. The Postal Department later found that the money orders were bogus and contained forged signatures of the Post Master. The appellant's defense was that he was falsely implicated in the case and that the money orders were genuine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's conviction was illegal because the police had taken a specimen of his handwriting without his consent and without a court order, in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the comparison of handwriting.
Issues: 1. Whether the police acted illegally in taking a specimen of the appellant's handwriting without his consent and without a court order? 2. Whether the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury under Section 114 of the Evidence Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the police acted illegally in taking a specimen of the appellant's handwriting without his consent and without a court order. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in M. P. Sanna v. Satish Chandra, which held that the guarantee against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India applies to both in-court and out-of-court statements. 2. The court held that the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The court found that the trial judge's direction was hedged with unwarranted limitations and was of little value, except in so far as it misled the jury.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and discharged the appellant from his bail bond.
( 1 ) THE appellant was tried by the Judge, City Sessions Court with the aid of a jury under Sections 120b/ 466/420, I. P. C. and under Section 466 for forging two documents and also under Section 420 I. P. C. on two counts. He was unanimously found guilty under all the charges and the learned Judge agreeing with and accepting the said verdict sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years on each charge to run concurrently.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story was that the appellant who is a clerk in the Eastern Railway Office at Kailaghat Street used to reside at Howrah where he was acting as private tutor to the children of the family of Radhesyam Tekriwalla and P. W. 13 Satyanarain Tekriwalla who were residing at Howrah but carrying on business at 203/1 Harrison Road, Calcutta. One Bilas Rai Lundia, P. W. 8 is a partner of the Tekriwallas and he also resided at Howrah and looked after the affairs of the Tekriwallas at 203/1 Harrison Road. Towards the end of May, 1955 the appellant told Bilas Rai Lundia that two money orders for Rs. 500/- and Rs. 600/- intended for the appellant would come in the name of Radhesyam Tekriwalla and Satyanarain Tekriwalla respectively. The appellant requested Bilas Rai Lundia to accept those two money orders and hand over the moneys to him. The appellant wrote out two letters of authority authorising Radhesyam Tekriwalla and Satyanarain Tekriwalla to accept the two money orders and made over the letters of authority to Bilas Rai Lundia P. W. 8. On 3-6-1956 two money orders of the value of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 600/- actually came in the names of Radhesyam Tekriwalla and Satya-narain Tekriwalla and Bilas Rai Lundia accepted the two money orders and on 4-6-1955 made over the moneys to the appellant on taking two receipts from him. In due course the Audit office of the Postal Department found that the two money orders in question purporting to bear Nos. 2225 and 2226 both dated 31-5-1955 and which purported to have been sent from Madrassa Post Office, Calcutta were bogus money orders and contained forged signatures of the Post Master, Gurudas Mukherjee, P. W. 11 of the Madrassa Post Office. The money orders however bore true seal stamps of the Madrassa Post Office. It was also found that no money orders bearing these two numbers 2225 and 2226 were ever issued from the Madrassa Post Office and the book of the money order receipts which contained these two receipts had not been issued from the G. P. O. to the Madrassa Post Office. On a comparison of the advice portion of the two money order forms with the writings of the appellant in some papers of the Eastern Railway Office, where he serves, and also with the specimen writings of the appellant taken by the Police, it was found that the writings on the two money orders were in the hand-writing of the appellant.
( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated in this case. It was also suggested that the two money orders in question were genuine money orders for which the remitter had deposited the moneys in the Madrassa Post Office but the employees of that Post Office particularly the Post Master and the Money Order clerk have mis-appropriated the moneys themselves. Along with this defence he has also suggested that he did not receive the two amounts at all. In his examination under Section 342, Cr. P. C. however he admitted that he had requested Bilas Rai Lundia to receive the two money orders and also gave him two letters of authority and had actually received the amounts from Bilas Rai Lundia. He however denied having written up the two money order forms or to have forged any portion of them. He admitted that the office files of the Eastern Railway office produced before the Court contained his handwritings but he challenged the specimen writings said to have been taken by the Police to be in his own handwriting. He added that Bindhyachal Singh, Packer of the Madrassa Post Office owed him Rs. 1,100/- and this Bindhya
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
