L.K. SIDDAPPA Vs. LALITHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Lalithamma filed a complaint in the trial Court against the petitioner, Siddappa, alleging that false documents were got prepared notifying the celebration of marriage, between herself and the petitioner, who wilfully distributed the same to friends and relatives and also caused them to be published in the newspapers with intent to deceive and cause injury to her. The complaint was registered for offences under Sections 465 and 500, I.P.C. The petitioner having pleaded not guilty the trial Court found on evidence that the accused had committed an offence under Section 465, I.P.C., and sentenced him to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal.

(2.) THE question for consideration is whether the documents in question amount to the commission of the offence, complained of. It is necessary for the discussion of the point raised to set out a few facts proved in the case. Exhibits P -1 and P -2 are printed marriage invitations issued under the name of Patel Chickkiah (D.W. 2) and Veerathappa (P.W. 2) respectively, announcing the marriage of the accused with the complainant to take place on the morning of 28 -6 -51 in the house of one Patel Basappa at Handanahalli. Veerathappa (P.W. 2) swears that there was never any proposal of marriage between the persons named in the documents nor did he authorise his name to be inserted in the invitation. He is the mother's sister's husband of Lalithamma, and is actively helping Basalingamma, her mother, in the management of the properties and he is also being consulted in important affairs as the father of Lalithamma was dead. Lalithamma is an young woman of about 20 years and lives with her mother as she is yet unmarried. She (P.W. 11) deposes that it is absolutely false that marriage between herself and the accused was fixed and denies that there was any authority either by her or by her mother to print and publish the marriage invitations. The proprietor of Ananda Press, Mysore (P.W. 1) where Exs. P -1 and P -2 were printed states that he is an astrologer and printer; that he fixed the date of marriage and printed the invitations on behalf of the petitioner. D.W. 2 Chikkiah avers that there was settlement of the marriage and that the original of Exhibits P -1 and P -2 indicate that the contract of marriage took place in his presence where the mother of Lalithamma as also her uncle Veerathappa were stated to have been present indicating thereby that they must have been responsible for having got printed the marriage invitations as per the original contract. This assertion remains unsubstantiated, and it is not even suggested to either the printer, or Lalithamma, or Veerathappa, D.W. 2 also does not affirm that he authorised the petitioner to use his name in the marriage invitation. It is thus clear that the accused has got Exs: P -1 and P -2 printed without authority from either Easalingamma or Veerathappa or Patel Chikkiah, much less with the permission or consent of Lalithamma. The defence evidence that the originals of Exs. P -1 and P -2 were genuine contracts has rightly been discounted and Exs. P -1 and P -2 held as false documents prepared and published without any authority or basis whatsoever.

(3.) THE short Question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner Siddappa has, by publishing the printed documents in question committed the offence under Section 465, I.P.C. Section 463 defines forgery (leaving out the details not necessary for this case) thus: