Back
THE QUEEN v. KAPURALA
NLR2V330
THE QUEEN v. KAPURALA.
(Crown Case reserved.)
Forgery-Attesting forged signature-Abetment of forgery-Ceylon
Penal Code, ss.
452 and 453.
Held by BONSER, C.J., and
WITHERS, J., dissentiente
LAWRIE, J., that a witness
who attests a document knowing that the signature of the maker of the document
is a forgery, is not guilty of forgery.
Semble, he may be guilty of abetment of forgery.
THE ease reserved by
WITHERS, J., for the consideration and opinion of the Full
Court, was as follows :-
"The accused Punchirala Vederalage Kapurala, of Kelegam"tulana in the Eppawala
korale of the Province of Anuradhapura, "was convicted before me of forgery.
"The documents alleged to be forged are two duplicate cattle "vouchers, Nos. 36
and 38. The former document purports to "record the sale of a buffalo by one
Bairalage Punchirala, of "Tamuttegama in the place aforesaid, to one Simeon
Perera, of "Weitara in Alutkuru korale, on the 4th day of September, 1895, "at a
village called Tamuttegama, in the Province of Anuradha"pura. The latter
document purports to record the sale of a
buffalo by one Mudianselage Ukkurala, of Dematawewa in the "said Kelegamtulana,
to one Simeon Perera, of Welitara aforesaid, "on the same day at the same place.
"At the alleged date of the alleged offence, viz., the 4th "September, 1895, the
accused was an arachchi, and the said "village of Tamuttegama was then in his
jurisdiction. 'It was "the duty of the accused, as such arachchi, to attest the
sales of
cattle by people resident in his jurisdiction. It was his duty to "prepare lists
of cattle owned by residents in his jurisdiction.
"He had prepared such a list for the year 1895, which contained "a description
of two buffaloes answering to the description of the "animals in the impeached
documents, as belonging respectively "to people bearing the names of the
respective vendors in the two "documents. It was proved that the particulars
under the various "heads in both documents were in the handwriting of the
accused. "It was further proved that the attestation in both documents was "in
his handwriting.
"Beyond these facts, and the fact that he had those documents in his possession
and custody, and that when called upon to do "so he handed them in one day in
October, 1895, to the Government Agent or his Assistant, it was not proved that
the prisoner "had signed the name of the vendor in either document, or put
" the mark of the vendee named
in them. Nor beyond these " facts was it proved that he had done any act against
the 2nd " and 3rd sub-sections of section 453 of the Penal Code.
" One Bairalage Punehirala, of the village of Tamuttegama afore-" said, was called to prove that he was the only person of that " name in that village, and he deposed that the name of Punchirala " as vendor in duplicate cattle voucher No. 36, was not signed by " him or by his authority.
" One Mudianselage Ukkurala, of Dematawewa aforesaid, was " called to prove that he was the only person of that name in that " village, and he deposed that the name of Ukkurala, as vendor in " duplicate cattle voucher No. 38, was not signed by him or by his " authority.
" I put to the jury at the close of my charge several questions " and directions.
" It must be taken that the jury found that the prisoner " dishonestly and fraudulently attested the two impeached " documents, intending it to be believed that the documents were " signed by or by the authority of the vendors respectively named " in them, by whom or whose authority he knew that the documents " were not so signed.
" This being so, was the prisoner guilty of the offence of forging " those documents ?
" If not, he must be adjudicated not guilty and acquitted.
" If he was, the verdict will stand. The documents with their " translations are appended.
" From the first, the accused asserted that the duplicates were " genuine, but he called no evidence,
