A report of the offence Ex.
Pappala Chinna Ramadasu was examined as W.4 to prove that he had sold the Press to Boddepalli Lakshminarayana, and two other witnesses were examined to prove the removal of the Printing Press by the appellants.
In the registered sale deed then executed, Govindachari was joined formally by Pappala Chinna Ramadasu.
This Press existed for over 17 years.
The case of the prosecution hinged upon the evidence of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu, when companyfronted with Ex.
From this material, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, found that Ex D 2 was number a forged document, as was suggested, but was amply proved as genuine by Pappala Chandrudu W 4 and the companybined evidence of Sri Rangam W. 3 and Sri B. R. Singh D. W. 8 .
He also stated that the deed, Ex.
Pappala Chinna Ramadasu P.W.4 was admittedly a printer and for some years, the declared keeper of that Press under s. 4 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
P. 1 to one Boddepalli Lakshminarayana for Rs 4,000/ , of which Rs.3,500/ were shown to have been paid in advance and the balance was received by Pappala Chinna Ramadasu on January 10, 1956, Ex.
The signature of Akkala Naidu was proved by his son, Sri Rangam.
P 13 , purporting to be written on March 27, 1956, was handed in at the police station house on the following day at 8 P.m.
D 2, he denied his signature, and stated evasively that he companyld number identify the signatures of Govindachari and Appala Naidu.
In support of the prosecution case, the companyplainant examined four witnesses, including himself.
456 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1958 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
D.2, was signed as witness by one Akkala Naidu, who died years before the present companytroversy started.
He also stated that he had purchased the Press from the Madras Type Foundry Co., for RH.
D 2 bore tho signature of Pappala Chimla Ramadasu.
The sale was for Rs.
The appellants examined eight witnesses in support of their case.
Subsequently, on January 11, 1956, a declaration under s. 4 of that Act was made by Boddepalli Lakshminarayana and was accepted Ex.
Kuna Appala Naidu later sold the Press to the second appellant and one Sri K. Sriramda, and the second appellant companytinued in possession as owner.
The declarations were made in 1944 Ex.
Subsequently, Appala Naidu made payments of certain amounts, and endorsements on tho promissory numbere showing these payments were signed by Pappala Chinna Ramadasu as a witness.
Two applications were then made on December 1, 1955, respectively by Chinna Ramadasu and Boddepalli Lakshminarayana before the Collector and District Magistrate for substituting the name of Boddepalli Lakshminarayana in place of that of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu in the declaration.
On November 21, 1955, Pappala Chinna Ramadasu sold this press by a registered document Ex.
P.4 and 1947 Ex.
6,400/ and on the same day, a promissory numbere was executed by Kuna Appala Naidu in favour of Govindachari, which was attested by Pappala Chinna Ramadasu.
D 2 and additionally the proof of the signature of Akkala Naidu, beoause if Akkala Naidu signed the document in 1947 and died some four years before the present companytroversy started, there would be good reason to think that a document of this character companyld number be a fabricated one.
9,107/ but that the bills were lost, and he added that they were taken away along with the Press, when it was removed.
On December 6, 1955, by Ex.
Kuna Appala Naidu was examined as W.1, and he stated that, the name of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu was formally included in the transfer deed, since the declaration stood in his name.
October 5.
The prosecution case which had a chequered career in the High Court and the two Courts below, is as follows In Dusi, which is a part of Bhaskararaopuram, there was a Press known as Srinivasa Printing Press at Srinivasa Ashram.
He identified the signature of his father number only on that document but also on Ex.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The police took numberaction, and a companyplaint was, therefore, filed on April 4, 1956, by Boddepalli Laksminarayana.
D 3, the promissory Dote.
31 of 1961.
The defence of the appellants was as follows According to them, the Press originally belonged to one Govindachari, and on October 25, 1947 he transferred it to Kuna Appala Naidu by Ex.
Ratna Rao and K R. Choudhri, for respondent No 1.
He stated categorically that Ex.
The appellants examined a handwriting expert, Sri B. R. Singh D.W.8 .
The case of the appellants rested upon the proof of the signature of Pappala Chinna Ramadasu on Es.
He also stated that h father had died in 1951.
500/ each, with further rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine.
P.11 they were informed that they should apply under the Press and Registration of Books Act 25 of 1867 .
Ram Reddy for the appellants.
Pappala Chinna Ramadas companytinued as the printer, and his declaration as the keeper of the Press also companytinued.
He admitted, however, that Appanna used to look after the Press after 1953, though he said that he used to visit the Press once in two or three months before he sold it to P.W.1, and that the companyrespondence used to be made in his name.
The Judicial Second class Magistrate, Srikakulam, companyvicted the two appellants of an offence under 8.
Ganganatham Chetty and T.M. Sen. for respondent No.2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. The two appellants who were granted special leave by this Court, appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh companyvicting them, on appeal against acquittal, of an offence under.
The companyplainant then obtained special leave of the High Court to file appeal against this acquittal, and the High Court reversed the acquittal, as already indicated above.
380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine Rs.
The case of the prosecution further is that Boddepalli Lakshminarayana went to Kurnool on March 20, 1956, and in his absence, the two appellants with two others who were prosecuted but acquitted removed the Printing Press on the night of March 25, 1956 to Korlakota where the first appellant, Apparao, resides.
