Gratiaen Perera V. The Queen

1960 Present: Weerasooriya, J., and Sinnetamby, J.

A. GRATIAEN PERERA, Appellant, and THE QUEEN, Respondent

S. C. 69-D. C. (Criminal) Colombo N 1930/38762A

    Evidence-Expert- Weight of his evidence-Handwriting- Duty of expert to give particulars-Duty of Judge to examine the expert's opinion.

Where a handwriting expert testifies of forgery, his testimony should be accepted only if there is some other evidence, direct or circumstantial, which tends to show that the conclusion reached by the expert is correct.

A handwriting expert should draw the attention of tm Judge to the details which influence him in reaching his decision, and the Judge must not accept the expert's opinion without making an attempt himself to decide whether the grounds on which the expert's opinion is formed are satisfactory. The opinion of the expert is relevant but the decision must, nevertheless, be the Judge's.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

Nimal Senanayake for the 3rd accused-appellant.

T. A. de S. Wijesundera, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 7, 1960. SINNETAMBY, J.-

This is an appeal by the third accused on a conviction of forgery in respect of four cheques referred to in counts 3 to 6 of the indictment, and, on count I, for conspiracy with the 1st accused in order to commit the offence of criminal misappropriation of the proceeds of the said four cheques. He was found guilty by the learned District Judge; so was the ,1st accused who has not appealed. There were, in all, four persons charged. The 2nd and 4th have been acquitted.

It would appear that the four cheques in question were given by customers to The Medapalatha Co-operative Stores Society Limited. The Secretary of the Society had endorsed them on behalf of the Society by writing the word" Credit" and affixing, below, the seal of the Society. They were then on 11.1.57 posted at the Nattandiya Post Office to the Society's Bankers, namely, the Chilaw District Co-operative Bank Limited. When the monthly statement from the Bank P15 was sent to the Society, it was discovered that certain cheques including the four cheques in question, namely, PI to P4 had not been credited to its account. This started inquiries and eventually it was discovered that the proceeds of these cheques were drawn by the first accused, to whose account they had been credited. The evidence also shows that the words" Credit "appearing above the seal of the Society had been altered to read "Creditz", the initials " A. C. " were written before the word " Creditz ", and the word "Perera "added after the word "Creditz ". To the casual reader the cheque would thus appear to have been endorsed

by one" A. C. Creditz Perera ". In this way, the cheques were once again brought into circulation. There has been no evidence led to suggest by whom these alterations were made. Thereafter, on the back of each cheque there appears an endorsement purporting to be signed by one H. M. Fernando followed by a direction to the follow effect. Please credit to the a/c of T. M. D. de Silva". There were also pay- in-slips in respect of each of the cheques having the purported signature of cc H. M. Fernando ". There is no evidence to establish, satisfactorily, the person who wrote the words, " Please pay to the credit of T. M. D. de Silva "; but the evidence of the Examiner of Questioned Documents is to the effect that the words "H. M. Fernando "on the reverse of the cheques PI to P4, and the entirety of the pay-in-slips PIA to P4A had been written by the 3rd accused. If this evidence of identification of the writing of the 3rd accused on the cheques as well as the pay-in-slips is accepted as having been satisfactorily established, there can be no doubt that the 3rd accused is guilty of the offence of forgery. Apart from the evidence of the handwriting expert, there were certain other items of slight circ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document