CAVE v. KRELTSZHEIM

D.C. Colombo, 38,081.

 Evidence-Forgery-Comparison of handwriting in disputed document with handwriting in genuine document.

In a case of forgery, a Judge sitting without a jury should not arrive at a decision on the comparison of handwritings without some proof that the handwriting of the disputed document is the handwriting of the accused.

Bonser, C. J. I am not satisfied that it was intended to allow a jury to find a man guilty of forgery, when no qualified witness could be found willing to state his belief that the alleged forgery was in the handwriting of the accused.

Withers, J. (with much hesitation).-It is permissible for a jury or Judge to bring in a verdict of guilty on the comparison of a disputed handwriting with a well-proved handwriting, unsupported by other evidence as to the disputed handwriting.

But a decision of Judge or jury resting solely on a comparison of other than ancient documents is dangerous.

THE complaint against the accused was that he committed  criminal breach of trust of certain goods entrusted to him as Value-Payable Parcel Register Clerk of Messrs. Cave & Co. of Colombo. At the inquiry it appeared that some of the goods mentioned were parted with by Cave & Co. on the strength of two letters (marked C and D), which purported to come from one Fernando from Kandy. The first letter ordered the goods, and

the second called attention to it, and it was proved that Fernando was a fictitious person. Certain books (marked B and G) kept by the accused and in his handwriting were also produced and referred to by a witness for the prosecution. The Police Magis­trate thereupon framed three charges against the accused :

(1) Under section 457 of the Penal Code, that he committed forgery of the letters C and D.

(2) Under section 403 of the Penal Code, that he cheated Cave & Co. and dishonestly induced them to deliver to him certain goods.

(3) Under section 391 of the Penal Code, that he committed criminal breach of trust of the property.

The accused consented to be tried by the Police Magistrate, and after he had adduced evidence for the defence, the Police Magistrate found him guilty of having forged the two letters C and D, for the purpose of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property in question, and sentenced him to nine months' rigorous imprisonment, observing : " The articles mentioned in the charge " under section 403 of the Penal Code were ordered by letter C; " and this order wa