BRAMBLE

Deogratus v. R. (1971) HCD 55

Crim. App. 339-A-70; 22/3/71; Bramble J.

The appellant was charged with and convicted with forgery c/ss 335 and 337 of the Penal Code. The particulars alleged that he gave certificates of competence to two people to hold a class “C” and a class “D” driving licence respectively when in fact he had not carried out any test as prescribed by the Traffic rules and therefore the certificates of competence were forgeries.

Held: 

(1) “By Section 3333 of the Criminal Procedure code Forgery is the making of a false document with intent to defraud or deceive. Section 335 specifies the various ways in which a person may be said to have made a false document and the only one which is relevant to this case is when a person makes a document purporting to be what in fact it is not. The appellant had the authority to issue the ones in question and subscribed his name to them. They were not false documents. The principle to be applied here is concisely stated in the 5^th Edition of Kenny’ Outlines of Criminal Law page 354:- “writing is not a forgery when it merely contains statements which are false, but only when it falsely purports to be itself that which it is not. The simplest and most effective phrase by which to express the rule is to state that for the purpose of the law of forgery when it merely contains statements which are false, but only when it falsely purports to be itself that which it is not. The simplest and most effective phrase by which to express the rule is to state that for the purpose of the law of forgery the writing must tell a lie about itself.” There was even no evidence that the certificates of competence were false.” 

(2) There is no evidence to support the convictions.  (3) Appeal allowed, convictions quashed.