The Attorney General V. Anthonipillai

1948     Present : Nagalingam and Windham JJ.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and ANTHONIPILLAI,
Respondent

S. C. 111-D. C. (Criminal), Jaffna, 4,350

Penal Code-Using as genuine a forged permit-Document not legally valid-Forgery-Must document be capable of effecting the fraud ?-Section 459.

In order to constitute forgery it is not necessary that the false document should be such that, if it were in truth what it purported to be, it would possess some legal validity.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge, Jaffna.

A. C. Alles, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General, appellant.

H. W. Jayewardene, for 1st accused respondent.

N. M. de Silva, for 2nd accused respondent.

Cur. adv. vult. 

October 21, 1948. WINDHAM J.--

This is an appeal by the Attorney-General on points of law against the acquittal of the two accused in the District Court on the following charges. Count 1 was against both accused, under section 459 of the Penal Code read with section 113B, charging them with having, between -May 8 and 12, 1946, at Jaffna, Elephant Pass and Marawila, conspired to use as genuine a forged permit to transport 80 hundredweight of red onions from Jaffna to Colombo purporting to have been issued to one S. Saravanamuttu of Puloly West, Point Pedro, knowing or having reason to believe it to be a forged document. Count 2 charged the 1st accused individually with the same offence, namely, using the permit knowing or having reason to believe it to be a forged document, contrary to section 459. Count 3 charged the 2nd accused with abetting the 1st accused in the commission of the offence under count 2. Count 4 charged the 1st accused with cheating, namely, with having, in the course of the above transaction, deceived A. Muttuthamby, " Assistant Government Agent (Emergency), Jaffna " (later amended to read " Staff Officer, Internal Purchase Scheme ") into the belief that the application for the permit referred to in count 1 was signed by one S. Saravanamuttu of Puloly West, whereas in truth and in fact he knew it was not signed by him, and thereby inducing the said A. Muttuthamby " to cause " the said permit "to be issued to the said Saravanamuttu. and that he has thereby committed an offence punishable under section 403 of the Penal Code ". Count 5 charged the 2nd accused with abetting the 1st accused in this offence of cheating under count 4.

The prosecution evidence, which was accepted by the learned District Judge, was briefly to the following effect. On May 8, the 2nd accused, a Government clerk, accompanied by the 1st accused, presented to Mr. Muttuthamby an application form for a permit to transport onions,

saying that it was the 1st accused who had brought the application, and that it was signed by S. Saravanamuttu, the wholesale dealer of Point Pedro. The application did in fact purport to be in the name of " S. Saravanamuttu of Puloly West, Point Pedro ", and it was for a permit to transport " 80 Ibs. of red onions to Colombo by road for my domestic consumption ". The prosecution evidence showed, however, that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document