IN 1967 Ganga Persaud committed a forgery in a birth certificate and was convicted by a magistrate.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellant, who was represented by Senior Counsel J. O. F. Haynes, appealed the decision.But the Full Court, constituted by Chief Justice Harold Bollers and Justice Kenneth George, heard the appeal and affirmed the magistrate’s decision.
The appeal was dismissed.
Mr. G. H. R. Jackman represented the respondent.
The appellant was charged indictably (was tried summarily) and convicted by a magistrate of forgery with intent to defraud the public of an entry in a Birth register by inserting the name “Paul” without a magistrate’s court order authorising it contrary to Section 279 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance , Chapter 10 (now section 277 of Chapter 8: 01).
On appeal to the Full Court it was submitted that what the appellant had done in inserting the name “Paul” before the name Hisric in the certified register of births and the annotation thereto did not amount to forgery, that the prosecution had failed to prove an intent to defraud the public, and that no one had in fact been defrauded. It was also argued that the charge should have been laid under section 252 (b) of Chapter 10 and not under Section. 279. The relevant provisions are set out in the judgment.
The Full Court held that: (i) What the appellant had done was a forgery as it amounted to a material alteration for which he had no authority as at the time the insertion was made no court order had been obtained authorising the alteration, and he had received no instructions from the Registrar General.
(ii) It was not necessary to show intent to defraud a particular person.
(iii) The prosecution had proved an intent to defraud the public because any member of the public desirous of obtaining a birth certificate in respect of the offending entry would have been issued with a certified copy thereof which would show that “Paul” was one of the names properly registered of Hisric Kowlessar, when in fact that was not so.
(iv) The charge was properly laid under Section 279 of Cap. 10, though it would have been more appropriate for it to have been laid under Section.252 (b).
The facts of the case disclosed that Ganga Persaud on Wednesday December 6, 1967 at Georgetown, County of Demerara, in Guyana, with intent to defraud the public, forged a certain entry in the Birth Register, to wit Birth Entry No. 100 of 1946 by inserting the name “Paul” without a Magistrate’s Order.
In the Magistrate’s Court the appellant was charged indictably and convicted of the offence of Forgery of a Document with intent to defraud the public contrary to Section 279 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Ordinance.
Before the trial began the prosecution made application for the summary trial on the grounds of adequacy of punishment, and the accused having been informed of his right to be tried by a jury, consented to be dealt with summarily under Section 60 (1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance, Chapter 15 .
And the Court thinking it expedient so as to deal with the case and the appellant having pleaded not guilty, the court proceeded to hear and determine the matter and found the appellant guilty.
The judgment added: “ It is from this conviction that the appellant now appeals to the Full Court on the main ground that the evidence led failed to establish an act of forgery within the meaning of Section 279 of the Criminal Law Offences Ordinance , Chapter 10.
At the close of the case for the prosecution the counsel for the appellant closed his client’s case and made certain submissions which formed the basis of the main ground of appeal. These submissions were overruled by the Magistrate who proceeded to convict the appellant of the aforesaid offence.
The evidence led by the prosecution revealed that in the office of the Registrar General there are kept two certificate books in relation to the registration of births. One book contains the original copies of birth certificates and in the other is kept the certified copies of birth certificates.
When a person seeks a correction in his birth certificate to be made by the Registrar General he makes an application supported by an affidavit under Section 43 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Ordinance in respect of the correction before a Magistrate of the District who upon being satisfied that the error has been committed in the entry, makes an Order in writing which is signed by him directing the Registrar to correct the entry. The Court Order is then taken to the Registrar General’s Office and placed in a particular book where Court Orders are kept. The record clerk then makes an entry of the particular order in the Court Order Book.
It appears that the application on which the Court Order was made was received in the Magistrate’s Court on December 7, 1967, but there was no date on the order and so the Magistrate inserted the correct date.
On this evidence the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion quite correctly in our view that there was no doubt that the appellant on December 6, 1967 had inserted the name “Paul” in the Register of Births in column (3) of Entry of Birth No. 100 and at the time when this insertion was made there was no Court Order authorising it, but subsequently on December 7, 1967 a Court Order was obtained from the Magistrate’s Court, Georgetown allowing this correction to the Entry No .100 in the Registrar of Births.
The learned Magistrate also found that the marginal note opposite to the entry made by the appellant stating that the necessary Court Order authorising the insertion had already been obtained was false.
The judgment of the Full Court which dismissed Ganga Persaud’s appeal also explained: “For the purpose of this Ordinance, forgery is the making of a false document in order that it may be used as genuine.”
By George Barclay