THE QUEEN v. PERERA.

THE QUEEN v. PERERA.

D. C. (Crim.), Colombo, 1,488/44,279.

 

Using as genuine a forged valuable security-District Court-Jurisdiction-Ceylon Penal Code, ss. 456, 459, and 392-Ordinance 1 of 1888, 8. 11.

Under section 11of Ordinance No. 1 of 1888, District Courts have jurisdiction to try the offence of uttering all forged documents in the nature of valuable securities knowing the same to be forged, although the offence of forging such documents is triable only by the Supreme Court.

THE accused, who was clerk and interpreter of the Itinerating Police Magistrate, Western Province, was charged (1) with fraudulently and dishonestly using as genuine a forged document purporting to be a valuable security, knowing the same to be forged, an offence punishable under sections 456 and 459 of the Ceylon Penal Code; and (2) with criminal breach of trust as a public servant, an offence under section 392 of the Penal Code.

At the trial the accused's counsel took objection to the jurisdiction of the District Court on the ground that the offence laid in the indictment was abetment under section 459 of forgery of a document of the class mentioned in section 456, and that as the maximum punishment for that offence may extend to twenty years the District Court had no jurisdiction to try it. He quoted in support of his objection the case of Reg. v. Rangaram Malji.

It was contended on behalf of the Crown that the indictment being under section 459 the District Court had jurisdiction; and the Additional District Judge (Mr. Pagden) overruled the objection in the following terms: -

" The case quoted from the Indian Courts, Reg. v. Rangaram " Malji (Bombay High Court Reports) seems hardly in point. " There it was held that the Sessions Court had no right to punish " with the severer punishment or try by a jury a man who has " only been indicted for the lesser offence, which is punishable " in India with only two years, and therefore should have been " tried by a First Class Magistrate.

" There is no question of course that a charge of forging a " document such as is mentioned in section 456 is beyond the " jurisdiction of this Court. There is equally no doubt that a " charge of using a forged document under 459 is punishable by " this Court. The present question is, whether using a document " under sections 459 and 456 is beyond the jurisdiction of this " Court. It is section 459 which prescribes the punishment, and "if it is said what that punishment was the offence would " certainly be triable by this Court. Section 459, however, does " not say this. It says, ' shall be punished in the same manner as " ' if he had forged such document.' We must therefore consider " where the punishment is to be found. It is to be found by " referring to section 456, but, be it noted, that section 456 does not " deal with uttering or using documents, but only with forging "them. Then we come to section 11 of the Procedure Code. Any " offence under the Penal Code may be tried by any Court by " which such offence is shown in the 7th column of the 2nd " schedule to be triable. Now, the offence in this case is under " section 459 and not section 456, for the latter section is only " referred to for ascertaining what punishment can be given under " section 459. It is the latter section and not the former which " really prescribes the punishment. The District Court has " therefore jurisdiction, and I overrule the objection and call on " accused to plead."

After hearing evidence the District Judge found the accused guilty, and the accused appealed.

Dornhorst, with H. Jayawardene and H. J. C. Pereira, for accused.

Drieberg, Acting C. C, for the Crown.

7th March, 1898, Lawrie, J,-

The accused was indicted for committing the offences punishable under sections 456, 459, and 92, viz., dishonestly using a

forged document, being a valuable security, knowing the same to be forged, and criminal misappropri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document