Trevelyan and Robert Fulton Rampini, JJ.

1. It is unnecessary for us to enter into the details of thehistory of this case. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge has accuratelynarrated the circumstances which led to the present enquiry. There can be nodoubt but that one of the most skilful and impudent forgeries ever committedhas been perpetrated. It is for us to ascertain whether on the evidence anyoffence has been brought home to the present accused.

2. The questions argued before us, and those which we haveto determine, are as follows: 1. Is exhibit A a genuine document 2. Is exhibitL a forgery 3. If A is genuine, was it ever on the Collectorate recordreferred to in this case 4. If A is genuine, and was on such Collectoraterecord, was it stolen therefrom 5. Have the accused or any of them committedany offence in respect of these documents

3. The learned Sessions Judge and the assessors have come tothe conclusion that exhibit A is a genuine document. Much argument on thissubject has been addressed to us. Mr. Woodroffe for the appellant has reliedupon the inability of Shama Churn Maiti, the Naib Nazir of the MidnaporeCollectorate, to determine whether the writing purporting to be his on A orthat on L is his writing.

4. If a forgery be a good one, an exact copy be made ofhandwriting, it is impossible for any one to swear from the handwriting as towhether a document is genuine. This question must be determined from evidenceand circumstances.

5. As Shama Churn Maiti proves, and as there can be nodoubt, one of these documents is a forgery, if they are not both forgeries.Shama Churns handwriting is the same in both. He can detect no difference. Itis very improbable that both A and L are forgeries. There must have been in theordinary course a genuine "Gach" summons filed, and the servicerecorded on it.

6. There is direct evidence as to the genuineness of A.Nityanand Maiti distinctly swears to A being the notice served upon him, and toL not having been served upon him. This witness is quite independent of theprosecution. If anything, his interest would be to shield the accused, as he isa near relation of one of them (Koilash), and lives in the same homestead withhim. Doubt is sought to be thrown on his testimony in this respect by hisevidence as to other handwriting. On examination, we do not think there isanything in the cross-examination of this witness as to handwriting whichdetracts from the value of his testimony as to his own writing; besides it isclear from this witness evidence that Kristo Priya died at the time alleged bythe prosecution. This witness lived in the same homestend with her, was presentat her death, and was present at her cremation. Throughout the case there is noreal suggestion that she died at any other time. This witness is apparentlyignorant as to the dates of the deaths of some others of his relations, but itdoes not appear that he was living with them or was present at their death.Again there is no doubt whatever but that A was found in Ishans box. That isnot disputed before us. It is preposterous to suppose that it was put there byRajnarain, or by any person interested with him or on his behalf.

7. It would not have been the interest of any one except theplaintiffs in the suit to forge A. It was a document which not only would notsupport the defendants case, but might be used against them, as it woulddistinctly show that their allegations, as to the death of Kristo Priya wasfalse. These considerations, we think, strongly support the direct evidence,even if they would not be sufficient without it. Mr. Prices name and theCollectorate seal would be evidence of the genuineness of the document if theystood by themselves, but those are both to be found on L. Whether viewed as aquestion of the competition for genuineness between A and L, or on the evidenceapplicable to A only, we think that the Court below was right in holding that Ais a genuine document. It follows that L is a forgery.

8. The next question is whether A was ever on theCollectorate record. We think that the determination of the question as to thegenuineness of A practically determines this question also.

9. It does not follow by any means that any one could speakto a document like this having been on the record. In the ordinary course itwould be on the record. The case would not be determined unless it had been filed,and on the document itself appear endorsements which could only have been madeon its being brought back to the Nazir after service. This would show that itmust have been on the record.

10. Again the fact that we find the forged document, exhibitL on the record, would lead one to suppose that it had been substituted for thegenuine document. In a matter of this kind it is right to raise legalpresumptions arising out of the ordinary course of business. Apart from anysuch presumption, the fact that it came back to the Nazirs office is apparentfrom the endorsement. It appears to have issued from the Collectorate, and tohave gone back there.

11. The next question is whether A was stolen from theCollectorate. It is difficult to imagine how it can have legitimately found itsway from the Collectorate records into Ishans box, i.e., into the box of aperson whose employer was interested in suppressing it. It has been argued, andrightly so, that before a man can be convicted of receiving property knowing itto be stolen, it must be shown that property has been stolen. The disappearanceof the document from the record plus the substitution of an imitation of it inits place, shows that it must have been taken with a dishonest object, andshows this as conclusively as can be.

12. The remaining question is the most important one. Weagree with the learned Sessions Judge in thinking that it would be unsafe toact in this case on the unsupported evidence of Gooroo Pershad. We are notprepared to say that he was an accomplice. He may have been one, but it wouldbe impossible to say in this case that he helped in the commission of theoffence. He was undoubtedly cognizant of it, and omitted to disclose it for sixdays. From any point of view, we do not think that his testimony is such as tojustify a conviction, except where he is corroborated. There is no doubt thathe is most amply corroborated with regard to Ishan. The fact that exhibit A wasfound in Ishans box is a very strong circumstance against him. He has neverattempted to explain this.

13. It is said that it is not shown that he acteddishonestly. Here a document having an important bearing on the case of hisemployer in the civil suit is found in his box after having been stolen fromthe record room of the Collectorate; it is difficult to conceive how hisintention can have been otherwise than dishonest.

14. Besides, there arises the ordinary presumption as toproperty recently stolen. Having regard to the substitution of L, which canonly have been effected for the purpose of making evidence in the suit, it is alegitimate inference that the substitution was made after the service of thesummons in the suit. As the suit was filed on the 20th of April, and A wasfound with Ishah on the 9th of July, A may be said to have been recently stolenat the time it was found.

15. The case as against the others is different. GirishChandra Mitter, whose evidence is unimpeached, proves that Koilash and BoikantaNath with Ishan and Gooroo Pershad gave instructions for the written statement.

16. Boikanta and Ishan first gave him instructions, and asto this he is positive. The written statement contains the untrue statement tosupport which L was substituted for A. Soon after the day on which GoorooPershad says that, Boikanta took away the notice, i.e. L, we find Boikanta Nathmaking an application for a copy of L. He and Koilash take this copy to thepleader, and Boikanta reads it out to the pleader. Boikanta before theMagistrate says that he got the copy at the instance of Gooroo Pershad, andthat Gooroo Pershad paid the costs. This is absurd, and is inconsistent withhis showing it to the pleader.

17. Koilash declined to say anything to the Magistrate as tothe documents. We think that the action of Koilash and Boikanta Nath withregard to the written statement and the procuring of the copy of L makes itclear that they were cognizant of the substitution of L for A, and corroboratesthe story told by Gooroo Pershad as to the parts taken by these persons in theperpetration of the crime.

18. So far as Koilash is concerned, there is also the factthat he was Ishans employer and must have known what was going on. This byitself would be worth little, but taken with regard to the other circumstance,it may well be considered.

19. We dismiss the appeals of all the accused.

.

Iahan Chandra Chandra and Ors. vs. Queen-Empress (22.11.1893- CALHC)