1931

Present: Akbar J.

KING v. PEIRIS et al.

161-162-D. C. (Crim.), Colombo, 9,525.

Evidence-Possession of used stamps- Evidence of possession on a previous occasion-Evidence Ordinance, ss. 9 and 14.

Where a person was charged with being in possession of used stamps and evidence was led to show that a document tendered by the accused in a previous legal proceeding bore a similarly used stamp,-

Held, that the evidence was admissible to rebut a defence, which would otherwise be open to the accused, viz., that he was mistaken by the supposedly genuine appearance of the stamps.

Held, further, that in the circumstances of the case, it was also relevant under section 9 of the Evidence Ordinance as a fact necessary to explain a fact in issue.

APPEAL from a conviction by their District Judge of Colombo.

Earle Wijeywardene, for first accused, appellant.

B. F. de Silva (with him de Jong and Rodrigo), for second accused, appellant.

Crossette Tambiah, C.C., for the Crown.

February 10, 1931. AKBAR J.-

The first accused was charged with selling a used Rs. 10 stamp on February 12, 1930, an offence punishable under section 256 of the Ceylon Penal Code and the second accused, with aiding and abetting him in the commission of this offence. The second accused was further charged with having in his possession three used stamps of the value of Rs. 10, Rs. 5, and Rs. 5, respectively, also punishable under the same section of the Penal Code.

The learned District Judge in a closely reasoned judgment has found both the accused guilty under the respective counts, and has sentenced them both to terms of rigorous imprisonment, aggregating in the case of the first accused to one year's rigorous imprisonment and the second accused to 18 months.

It appears that the Additional District Judge, Mr. de Kretser, noticed that several stamps were missing from the records and also that stamps which had been once used were used again after being "treated." He held an exhaustive inquiry and found that processess issued by certain Proctors had defaced stamps affixed to them. The fact that he found certain Proctors associated with these stamps does not, of course, show that these Proctors were not duped themselves by their employees. His attention was directed particularly to 3 summonses marked P6, P7, and P8, and also to a petition (P4) by a petitioning creditor in an insolvency case, namely, D. C, Colombo, No. 3,984. All these documents undoubtedly contained treated stamps and the summonses, P6, P7, and P8 were issued from a firm of Proctors under whom the second accused is employed as a process clerk. As regards these documents, P6, P7, and P8, the District Judge stated as follows :-

" I do not propose to deal or comment upon the summonses P6, P7, and P8 as I am satisfied from the evidence in the case that although the second accused was the clerk of Messrs. Wilson & Kadirgamar, whose chief duty was to issue processes, there were other clerks also who at times attended to this work.

" There was also the evidence of Mr. Ondaatjie, who was the District Court clerk, who attended to processes, who said, that P6, P7, and P8 where issued by Messrs. Wilson & Kadirgamar, but that in his knowledge several clerks from that firm attended to processes. Under these circumstances I do not propose to base any conclusion or inference from the nature of the stamps affixed to these summonses. "

As regards P4, however, there is no doubt that the stamp was initialled by the second accused and that the second accused himself was the petitioning creditor.

Mr. de Krester held an inquiry and examined the Proctor appearing in the record for the petitioning creditor in the insolvency case and also the second accused ; but the second accused denied that he put the stamp on the petition. The result of the inquiry was to leave the question doubtful whether the second accused had any conscious knowledge of the