Judgment :- 1. The appellant E. D. Chacko stands convicted by the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum under S.467,468, 471 and 420 read with S.511, I. P. C. and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under S.467 and for two years each under the other sections read with S.511, IPC. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The case against the accused is that he forged the number in a lottery ticket and claimed the amount from the Government under whose auspices the lottery is conducted. The drawing of the lottery was held on 26-1-1968 and the results were published in the Kerala Gazette No. 5 dated 30 11968. Two second prizes to the value of Rs. 10,000/ -each had been announced and one of the two tickets which won the second prize was ticket No. C. 46837. For some day after the publication of the result nobody came forward to claim the prize due under the above ticket. So, a press release was issued by the Director of State Lotteries on 10 21968, calling upon the holder of this ticket to produce it and receive the prize. (Along with this number a few other numbers were also announced as not claimed.) On 17 21968 the accused sent a letter to the Director of State Lotteries intimating him that he was in possession of ticket No. C. 46837. On receipt of his letter, the Director sent a telegram to him on 19 2 68 asking him to produce the ticket before the District Treasury Officer, Kottayam, for verification. But the accused did not produce the ticket as directed. On 12 31968, he produced it before the Director and claimed the prize money. The ticket was found to be soiled and the number in the ticket found illegible. The Director got suspicious about the genuineness of the ticket and he forwarded it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. It was examined by the Assistant Director and Examiner of Questioned Documents and found that the first, second, fourth and fifth digits in the number of the ticket had been tampered with. Thereupon, the Director lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C. I. D. on 29 6 68 and on the basis of the complaint the case was registered under S.467, 468, 471 and 420 read with S.511, IPC. and the accused was arrested on 14 71968. Thereupon, the Director lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C. I. D. on 29 6 68 and on the basis of the complaint the case was registered under S.467, 468, 471 and 420 read with S.511, IPC. and the accused was arrested on 14 71968. In the course of the investigation, on the information supplied by the accused, M. Os. 2 to 15 were recovered. In pursuance of the information given by the accused, a tin was unearthed from the bed of a coffee plant standing in the courtyard of his house. 3. The accused denying the charge, admitted that he was the holder of ticket No. C. 46837. The ticket was purchased by him from an agent at Kanjirapally. It is true that a letter was sent by him to the Director of State Lotteries, claiming the amount. Ticket No. C. 46837 was produced by him before pw. 4 on 12 31968; but at that time the ticket was not soiled. The ticket now before court namely, M. O.1 looks very much soiled and that was not the ticket that he had produced before pw 4. He had written his name and signed on the back of the ticket produced by him but he is not in a position to affirm or deny that the name and signature found on the back of M. 0.1 were written by him. There was no erasure or substitution of any digits in the ticket presented by him to pw 4. About M. Os. 2 to 15 recovered from his house his statement was that he was manhandled by the Ponkunnam Police and he was asked to take a tin kept under a coffee plant and give it to the police. So, on 15 21968 he took the tin shown to him by a constable and gave it to the constable. The ticket was shown by him to pws. 7 and 8. Then it was not soiled. He denied having purchased the disc M. 0.4 from pw 13. The purchase of M. 0.3 series and 5 was also denied. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case in full and has entered the conviction. 4. There is convincing evidence in the case to show that the ticket was tampered with by the accused. He denied having purchased the disc M. 0.4 from pw 13. The purchase of M. 0.3 series and 5 was also denied. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case in full and has entered the conviction. 4. There is convincing evidence in the case to show that the ticket was tampered with by the accused. The numerals 4, 6, 3 and 7 in the number 46837, appeared to have been tampered with. The original number of the ticket was "C. 46837". But the letter C and the digit 8 do not show any evidence of tampering. The 1st, 4th and 5th digits of the erased number were 8, 0 and 2 respectively. Even though there is evidence of erasure near the 2nd digit, the experts were not able to say clearly what its original numeral was. The experts who had occasion to handle the impugned ticket are pws. 16, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Medical College, Trivandrum and pw. 17, Assistant Director (Chemistry) in the above college. In Ex. P4 the report sent by the Assistant Director he has given reasons for their conclusions. The surface of the ticket near the number showed greater disturbance of fibres than the rest of the surface. Also, the ticket showed small tears after the letter '0' and the figure V. When the ticket was examined under transmitted light it was found that more rays were transmitted through the portions of the ticket near the digits 4, 6, 3 and 7 due to the relative thinness of the paper at those portions. From the shape of the patches of light transmitted near the digits of the present number the 1st, 4th and 5th digits of the erased number appear to be 8, 0 and 2 respectively. Ex. P19 is an enlarged photograph of the front side and Ex. P20 that of the back side of the ticket. Ex. P 19 and 20 were examined by pw 16 and were found to be correct photograph of the front and back sides. 5. The accused stated that he was the holder of ticket No. C. 46837 and the same had been produced by him before Pw4, the Director of Treasuries, Trivandrum on 12 31968. Ex. P13 is the receipt issued to the accused by Pw4 on receipt of ticket. 5. The accused stated that he was the holder of ticket No. C. 46837 and the same had been produced by him before Pw4, the Director of Treasuries, Trivandrum on 12 31968. Ex. P13 is the receipt issued to the accused by Pw4 on receipt of ticket. In his S.342 examination, the accused tried to build up a case that M. 0.1 is not the ticket produced by him before Pw4. According to him M. O.1 looks soiled, while the ticket produced by him was not so soiled. Pw4 is positive that the ticket produced by the accused was M.O. land no other. In Ex. P13 there is no statement that the ticket looked soiled and this circumstance was relied on by the learned counsel to show that at the time the ticket was produced it was not soiled. But the accused himself, as is seen from Ex P8 and P9 letters, was convinced that the ticket was soiled when he produced it. Ex. P9 dated 8 61968 is the letter addressed by the accused to Pw4, Director of Treasuries. Therein he has stated that the ticket was soiled. To quote his own words: In the face of this clear admission, it is not now open to him to argue that the ticket was not soiled at the time he produced it before Pw4. Learned counsel argued that to prove the tampering we have only the uncorroborated testimony of the experts and no conclusion can be entered on such evidence. The position is no doubt, unassailable that no conviction can be entered solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an expert. But in the present case, their evidence stands corroborated by the recovery of M. Os. 3 to 15 from the accused's house on information furnished by him. M. 0.3 series are lead types bearing digits from 0 to 9. M.O.4 is a screw containing the digits (0 to 9) with a nut. M.O.5 is the type of letter 'C'. M.O.6 is a magnifying eye glass. M. 0.7 is a bottle containing red printing ink. M. 0.8 is a lottery ticket. M. 0.9 are ink pads 2 (small) red in colour. M. 0.10 is a paper containing some numbers. M. 0.11 is ink covered in oil paper. M. 0.12 series are Carat blade and two pieces of papers. M.O.6 is a magnifying eye glass. M. 0.7 is a bottle containing red printing ink. M. 0.8 is a lottery ticket. M. 0.9 are ink pads 2 (small) red in colour. M. 0.10 is a paper containing some numbers. M. 0.11 is ink covered in oil paper. M. 0.12 series are Carat blade and two pieces of papers. M. 0.13 is a piece of paper containing the name and address of V. Vasumalai. M. 0.14 is a bus ticket issued by Southern Road Ways and M. 0.15 is an iron chissel covered by white piece of cloth. All these were kept buried under a coffee plant in the accused's compound. pws. 7 and 8 have attested the recovery mahazar. The recovery of these articles is in a tell-tale circumstance connecting the accused with the forgery. He has no explanation worth-considering as to why these articles were kept by him. It is particularly significant that other tickets bearing some of the identical digits were also kept by him. M. 0.2 is a tin in which these implements were kept. The prosecution has succeeded in showing that these implements were made use of in one form or other for erasing the unwanted digits from the ticket and substituting in their place other required digits. On a comparison of the ink scrapped from the digits in the disc attached to M. 0.4 and the ink in M. 0.7 and the ink used for printing the digits and the letters V. No.' in M. 0.1, with the ink scrapped from M. 0.4 and the ink in M. 0.7, following conclusions were reached: (1) The ink of the numeral '8' in M.O.1 is not identical with the ink of other numerals in M. 0.1. (2) The ink of letters 'C No.' of M.O.1 Is not identical with the ink of numerals other than '8' in M.O.1. (3) The ink scrapped from M. 0.4 and the ink in M 0.7 are similar; and (4) It is possible that the numerals other than '8' in M.O1 could have been printed by the ink in M.O.7. On a careful consideration of the matter in the light of the above conclusions I am satisfied that the conclusions are correct and can be relied on. 6. Along with the above conclusions we have to consider certain circumstances centering round the transaction. On a careful consideration of the matter in the light of the above conclusions I am satisfied that the conclusions are correct and can be relied on. 6. Along with the above conclusions we have to consider certain circumstances centering round the transaction. The results of the drawing of the lottery were published in the Government Gazette dated 30 11968. The accused saw the announcement and he showed his ticket to pw. 7. On 10 21968 a press release appeared in the Malayala Manorama to the effect that certain tickets which had won prizes at the drawing had not claimed the prizes and the holders of those tickets were, therefore, requested to report themselves to the Director of State Lotteries. The impugned ticket (C. 46837) which had won a second prize, was one of the numbers specifically mentioned in the press release. The accused had come across the press release also in the newspaper as is evident from the fact that after the publication of the press release, he showed his ticket to pw. 8. But it is surprising that he did not intimate the fact to the authorities and claim the amount. The ticket was produced by him only on 12 31968, by which time the period of 30 days for claiming the amount had expired. That the winners should produce their tickets and claim the amount within 30 days of the publication of the result is a condition printed on the reverse of the ticket itself. This is a highly suspicious circumstance. It is patent that the accused had been waiting to see if any one would come forward in the meantime to claim the second prize covered by C. 46837. The accused has sought to get over this difficulty by the allegation that the ticket had inadvertently been taken away by his brother-in-law to Malabar and he had to go to Malabar and get it from him. This excuse was put forward for the first time in Ext. P11 lawyer's notice issued by him. In Ex. P6 the letter addressed by the accused to the Director of State Lotteries he stated that until 17 21968 the ticket was missing. That can only be an afterthought as is clear from the evidence of pws. This excuse was put forward for the first time in Ext. P11 lawyer's notice issued by him. In Ex. P6 the letter addressed by the accused to the Director of State Lotteries he stated that until 17 21968 the ticket was missing. That can only be an afterthought as is clear from the evidence of pws. 7 and 8 to whom the ticket was shown by the accused; to the former just after 3011968 and to the latter after 10 21968. The accused has also not cited his brother-in-law Devassia who according to him had taken the ticket to Malabar. From the above facts and circumstances the conclusion is inescapable that M. 0.1 was forged by the accused by altering some of the digits in the original so as to make it appear that it is No. C. 46837. 7. Learned counsel argued that M.O.1 is not a valuable security and as such conviction entered under S.467 and 468 cannot be sustained. The contention is that M.O.1, when it was produced, even granting that it was a genuine ticket, had no value since it was produced out of time. As already pointed out, the tickets should have been produced within thirty days from 3011968 and according to the instructions printed in the ticket itself a successful ticket produced after thirty days of the publication of the result will not be entitled to payment. The expression 'valuable security' according to S.30 of the I.P.C. denotes a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right. From the instructions printed on the back of the ticket it could be argued that at the time the ticket was produced it was open to the authority to refuse payment. But that will not make the ticket any the less a valuable security because under S.30 a document purporting to be valuable security is also a valuable security for purposes of S.467. But that will not make the ticket any the less a valuable security because under S.30 a document purporting to be valuable security is also a valuable security for purposes of S.467. "The use of the words 'which is, or purports to be indicates that a document, which, upon certain evidence being given, may be held to be invalid, but on the face of it creates, or purports to create, a right in immovable property, although a decree could not be passed upon the document, is contemplated within the purview of the section. Had it not been so, any forged document, if the forgery was admitted, or any document which was not executed or stamped according to law and on which no decree could be passed by a civil Court, could not be called a valuable security. The fact that a document has not been stamped, or not property stamped, and is not, therefore, receivable in evidence, does not prevent its being a valuable security. This is so because such documents 'purports to be' a valuable security". (Law of Crimes Ratanlal Twenty first Edition p. 61) So also in the present case, even if the Director of State Lotteries could have put forward the argument that since the ticket is produced out of time he is not under obligation to make the payment, for that reason alone the document will not cease to be a valuable security. The obligation is there to make the payment even though before a court of law he could resist the claim by relying on the printed instructions on the back of the ticket. I would, therefore, hold that M.O.1 is a valuable security and that the forgery will fall squarely under S.467, IPC. 8. The accused has also the contention that lottery is a wagering contract and as such it is not enforceable in a court of law. In this view also according to the learned counsel, M.O.1 has to be treated as not a valuable security. Lottery can be brought under 'wagering contracts' dealt within S.30 of the Indian Contract Act. 8. The accused has also the contention that lottery is a wagering contract and as such it is not enforceable in a court of law. In this view also according to the learned counsel, M.O.1 has to be treated as not a valuable security. Lottery can be brought under 'wagering contracts' dealt within S.30 of the Indian Contract Act. "A wagering contract is one by which two persons, professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of a future uncertain event, mutually agree that, dependent on the determination of that event, one shall win from the other, and that other shall pay or hand over to him, a sum of money or other stake; neither of the contracting parties having any other interest in that contract than the sum or stake he will so win or lose, there being no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of the parties. It is essential to a wagering contract that each party may under it either win or lose, whether he will win or lose being dependent on the issue of the event, and, therefore remaining uncertain until that issue is known. If either of the parties may win, but cannot lose, or may lose but cannot win, it is not a wagering contract." (Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co-1892 2Q.B. 484 at p. 490) "The Madras High Court has defined' lottery' as "a game of chance in which the event of either gain or loss of the absolute right to a prize or prizes by the person concerned was made wholly dependent upon the drawing of lots, and the necessary effect of which was to beget a spirit of speculation and gaming that was often productive of serious evils" (Kamakshi Achari v. Appavu Pillai 1 HCRM. 448) The Lower Burma Chief Court has held in Maung Sanya v. Indian Telegraph Association Club 38 Indian Cases 566): "A lottery is really a bet between each subscriber and the promoter, the subscriber betting the price of his ticket that he will win, the promoter betting the total subscription that he will not'. There is no difference between gaming and 'wagering' as used in the English Gaming Act and in the Indian Act 21 of 1848 and in the expression 'by way of wager' used in the Indian Contract Act. There is no difference between gaming and 'wagering' as used in the English Gaming Act and in the Indian Act 21 of 1848 and in the expression 'by way of wager' used in the Indian Contract Act. The fact that the subscriber pays his stake in advance, instead of merely agreeing to do so does not seem to me to prevent the transaction being a bet or wager within the above definition, any more than the deposit of his stake by a gambler with a bookmaker prevents a bet on a horse-race being a wager; nor again does the fact that the winner's gain is uncertain prevents its being a wager any more than the same uncertainly prevents a bet on a totalisator being a bet. Act 21 of 1848 did not make gaming or wagering illegal. The Legislature merely sought as stated in the preamble to discourage it by refusing to help the winner to recover the money. "Lotteries fall under the general and milder Wagering Act and finally under S.30 of the Contract Act. In my opinion, therefore, no suit lies against the first defendant to recover the money." "A lottery is not an arbitration. Every lottery, which may be defined as a distribution of prizes by lot or chance, necessarily involves agreements by way of wager between persons taking part therein. When a competition is decided by skill or judgment there is no lottery. Where no loss is necessarily hazarded there is no lottery, A picture puzzle competition has been held to be be a game of skill." (Indian Contract Act A. C. Dutt 3rd Edn. p. 291 Under the English law, wagering contract is a void contract merely. It is not an illegal contract. The object of the wager is to make again purely as the result of the decision of an uncertain event. One party backs his knowledge, skill, or luck against that of the other, and in a true wager this is the whole transaction. In such a case the winner cannot sue to recover his winnings. It however, does not preclude either party from recovering his own deposit from the stakeholder until it has been paid over to the winner. 9. The position is that a wagering contract is not an illegal contract. But in an action brought by the winner the court will not help him to recover his winning. It however, does not preclude either party from recovering his own deposit from the stakeholder until it has been paid over to the winner. 9. The position is that a wagering contract is not an illegal contract. But in an action brought by the winner the court will not help him to recover his winning. He may get a decree for the amount actually invested by him. S.294 A of the IPC. provides that keeping any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery will be punished; but if it is a State lottery or a lottery authorised by the Government, the party will be exonerated. This does not mean that lottery is recognised by law as a valid contract fully enforceable in a court of law. The court will go to the help of the winner only to recover his investment. "Indeed, some of the gambling practices are a perennial source of income to the State. In the circumstances it is not possible to hold that there is any definite head or principle of public policy evolved by Courts or laid down by precedents which would directly apply to wagering contracts. Even if it is permissible for Courts to evolve a new head of public policy under extraordinary circumstances giving rise to incontestable harm to the society, we cannot say that wager is one of such instance? of exceptional gravity for it has been recognised for centuries and has been tolerated by the public and the State alike. If. it has any such tendency, it is for the legislature to make a law prohibiting such contracts and declaring them illegal and not for this Court to resort to judicial legislation. The common law of England and that of India have never struck down contracts of wager on the ground of public policy; indeed they have always been held to be not illegal notwithstanding the fact that the statute declared them void. The moral prohibitions in Hindu Law texts against gambling were not only not legally enforced but were allowed to fall into desuetude. In practice, though gambling is controlled in specific matters, it has not declared illegal and there is no law declaring wagering illegal." (Gheratal Parkh v. Maha deodas (AIR. 1959 S.C. 781) 10. In the light of the above pronouncements it cannot be argued that lottery is an illegal contract. In practice, though gambling is controlled in specific matters, it has not declared illegal and there is no law declaring wagering illegal." (Gheratal Parkh v. Maha deodas (AIR. 1959 S.C. 781) 10. In the light of the above pronouncements it cannot be argued that lottery is an illegal contract. Lottery can come if at all, under the group 'wagering contracts" and such contracts have not been declared illegal even though they are void. The argument therefore, that MO.1 is not a valuable security since the winning is not possible to be recovered through a court of law, is not available to the accused. 11. Before I conclude I should think it necessary to point out that the learned Sessions Judge ought not have admitted the evidence of pws 5 and 6 against the accused. These two witnesses were examined by the prosecution to show that the accused is of bad character, he having made a previous attempt to knock off the prize in a lottery conducted by the Kottayam Public Library by such foul methods. Evidence of the prisoner's bad character is inadmissible in law. But if the accused adduces evidence of his good character, the prosecution can, by way of rebuttal, resort to evidence of his bad character. "An accused is allowed to appeal to his own good character to aid in the demonstration of his innocence; and the prosecution is allowed to use the opposite fact for the opposite purpose. The object of laying the latter (good character) before the jury is to induce them to believe, from the improbability that a person of good character should have conducted himself as alleged, that there is some mistake or misrepresentation in the evidence on the part of the prosecution. It is evidence to induce them to say whether they think it likely that a person with such a character would have committed the offence. "(Field's Law of Evidence 9th Edition Vol. III p. 255.) 12. No other point arises. But I do not think that the accused has committed the offence of cheating. No one was in fact, cheated. The conviction and sentence under S.420 therefore must go and I acquit him of that charge. Conviction and sentence passed under S.467, 468 and 471 IPC. are confirmed. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated and dismissed in other respects.