Pishu Shamdas Chellaram v. The Queen
|
CACC000067/1982
BETWEEN
------- Coram: Penlington, J. Date: 12 March 1982 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ 1. This is an appeal against conviction on a charge of uttering a forged document contrary to Section 74(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. The Appellant was convicted and was fined $5,000. 2. The main ground upon which the Appellant relies is that the learned Magistrate was wrong in law in finding that a "promisory note" which was handed by the Appellant to an official of the Labour Department was a false document within the meaning of section 69 of the Crimes Ordinance. This "promisory note "is signed by an employee of the Appellant one Miss Annabelle Montano and it sets out that she has borrowed a sum of $5,000 from the Appellant and she undertakes inter alia to repay that sum over a period of two years by means of payments of $200 per month to be deducted from her salary. 3. When Miss Montano gave evidence she stated that she thought that when she signed the document it was not as long as it is now but she was not able to say definitely that the document produced was altered apart from a fact that it was apparently undated when signed. I do not consider that the question of the date of the document is of any relevance in this particular case. It seems to me therefore clear that while the Magistrate was quite entitled on the evidence to come to the finding of fact that he did which was that no such loan was in fact ever made to Miss Montano and that the Appellant was not entitled to make the deductions from her salary that he did, it was not a false document within the definition in section 69 of the Ordinance. To be a false document within that definition the document must purport to be something which in fact it is not. The fact that it tells a lie is not sufficient. It must tell a lie about itself. Thus even if Miss Montano did not receive the loan, and I see no reason to disagree with the finding of fact on that, the document purports to be a receipt for that loan signed by Miss Montano and that is precisely what it is. 4. The Crown did not seek to uphold the conviction and at the hearing conceded that this ground of appeal must succeed. Accordingly I allow the appeal set aside the conviction and order that the fine, if paid, be remitted. I did so with reluctance because it seems quite clear that the behaviour of the Appellant was such that he could expect to receive no sympathy whatever from any court. I am satisfied that he has endeavoured to evade the conditions of a contract into which he had entered and that he has set out to defraud Miss Montano of part of her salary. He is however not guilty of the particular charge which has been brought against him.
Representation: A. Huggins instructed by Hampton, Winter & Glynn for the Appellant. J. Conyngham, C.C. for the Crown. |