Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.- These appeals are against the conviction and, sentence of the two appellants at the Fourth Criminal Sessions, 1955, the 2nd accused being the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 74 of 1956 and the 1st accused being the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 95 of 1956. Leave to appeal was granted under section 411-A(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code by this Court.

The first accused Raghavan was charged under sections 419 and 467, Indian Penal Code for having cheated one Pushparaj, a postman attached to the Saidapet post office, by pretending to be one Krishnan and inducing the said Pushparaj to deliver to him Rs. 25 covered by Telegraph Money Order No. 2637 dated 28th December, 1954, intended for the said Krishnan and in the course of the same transaction for having forged the receipt and acknowledgment in the said Telegraph Money Order. The second accused K.K. Swami was charged with having abetted the commission of the said offence and therefore committed offences punishable under sections 419 and 467 read with 114, Indian Penal Code. The 1st accused pleaded guilty. The 2nd accused entered a plea of ‘not guilty’. A jury was empanelled and the trial was proceeded with. The second accused was defended by counsel. The 1st accused was not defended and did not cross-examine the witnesses and did not otherwise take part in the trial. After the close of the evidence, his statement was recorded under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, and he was questioned by Court as to whether he heard the evidence of the postman Pushparaj that he came with the money order to Krishnan and that the 1st accused impersonated as Krishnan and received the money order, to which his answer was he had nothing to say about it. A further question was put to him that he stated in the lower Court that he received the money order, and his answer was that it was true that he signed as Krishnan. When he was further asked whether he wished to say anything more, he said he had nothing further to say and that he had no defence witnesses to examine. The jury put him a question as to whether he could say the denomination of the money which he received was Rs. 5. Rs. 2 or Re. 1 and his answer was he did not remember.

In the charge to the Jury the learned Judge stated that there were two accused in this case and after referring to the charges proceeded to state as follows:

"The first accused is not defended, ladies and gentlemen, because he had pleaded guilty to the charge. You have seen that he has admitted having impersonated as Krishnan and admitted having signed as Krishnan and so he has pleaded guilty to the charges. So far as he is concerned, you will have to return a verdict of guilty on both the charges. There is no other alternative. I only gave him a chance for him to say what he had to say when the charges were read over to him and he has admitted the offences. So in the face of the plea of guilty and the other evidence on the case you have to return a verdict of guilty against the first accused on both the charges".

The learned Judge then proceeded to discuss the evidence stating that the real dispute in the case is with regard to the 2nd accused. In the concluding portion of the charge, after discussing the evidence as against the 2nd accused, the learned Judge stated:

" That is the offence so far as the second accused is concerned. There is one important circumstance which you must remember in considering the evidence, and that is, the first accused has pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. He has also made a statement. ‘I have received money and I have received money at the instance of the second accused’. The law says that the statement of one accused about the other accused should not be taken as evidence but you can take that into consideration. Now you are in doubt whether you should believe the evidence of Pushparaj, Jayapal Singh and Lakshmi Bai and you do not know which is true and which is not true, i.e., whether the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document