KING v. KANJAMANADAN.

THE KING v. KANJAMANADAN.

Forgery-Indictment-Four counts of forgery at same time and place-Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 179 and 180 (1)-Offences charged not shown to be parts of same transaction-Misjoinder of charges-False entry of clerk in book kept by himself-Absence of evidence that entry was false-Penal Code, s. 453-" By the authority of a person "-Power of Supreme Court to amend indictment after verdict and to alter conviction-Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 171,172, 355.

   Where an indictment alleged more than three offences, but did not show on the face of it that they all formed one single continuous transaction,-

    Held that it was not open to the prosecution to prove that they were all committed in one and the same transaction.

    Where an indictment alleged forgery, but did not allege that the false document was made with the intention of making it to be believed that it was made by, or by the authority of, another,-

    Held, that such indictment was bad.

    Where upon a charge of forgery the evidence led disclosed that the entries were false, but did not show any intention on the part of the prisoner that the entries should pass as the act of any other person than himself,-

    Held, that the offence of forgery was not committed.

    LAYARD, C.J.-   Section 453, clause 1, of the Penal Code, so far as it relates to a document executed by the authority of a person other than the person who wrote it; refers to a document made by one person as by the authority and according to the direction of another, and intended to pass as the act of the other; not to a document purporting merely to be made by one man by the order or authority of another for the use of that other.

    MIDDLETON, J.- Forgery involves the representation that the thing written is the handiwork of some one other than the actual writer, or that it purports to be written as the act of another and so by his authority. It must appear on the face of it that it is intended to pass as the act of another person.

    Where a person who has authority to make entries in the account books of another person, subject to a certain procedure, makes an , unwarranted entry in his books, he does not intend it to be believed that . it was an entry made by any other person than himself, or as representing on the face of it as an authority given by any other person.

    Where a jury has convicted on counts of an indictment which disclosed no offence according to law, the Supreme Court has no power to amend the indictment after verdict, nor, on a case reserved under the provisions of section 355 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to dissect the verdict of the jury and appropriate the finding of guilty to the amended counts.

AT the third criminal sessions, 1903, of the Supreme Court holden for the Western Circuit in Colombo the Commissioner of Assize, Mr. T. E. de Sampayo, reserved the following case for the consideration of a Full Bench of the Supreme Court:-

    " On the 27th July, 1903, Andrew Benedict Kanjamanadan was indicted before me and a special jury on the following charges: -

    " (1) That he did, on or about the 24th day of June, 1902, at Colombo, commit forgery, intending that the document so forged should be used for the purpose of cheating, to wit, by dishonestly and fraudulently making a false entry of Rs. 317.16 in the credit column of the current account of N. A. Abram Saibo & Co. in the No. 4 current account ledger of the National Bank of India, Limited, Colombo branch, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 457 of the Ceylon Penal Code.

    " (2) That he did, further, at the time and place aforesaid, commit forgery, intending that the document so forged should be used for the purpose of cheating, to wit, by dishonestly and fraudulently making a false entry of Rs. 1,682.84 in the credit column of the current account of P. Adam Saibo & Co. in the No. 1 current

Click Here to Read the rest of this document