# HARi SAO AND ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR October IS, 1969

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 823
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. ., 240 of 1966
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, G. K. Mitter, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hari-sao-and-anr-v-state-of-bihar-october-is-1969-4951
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Indian Railways Act (9 of 1890), ss. 73 and 74 and Goods Tariff
Genernl Rules, rr. IS anJ 22-Scope of-Issue of railway receipt by rail·
way-Description, number and weight of goods not accepted b;1 railway
but only as alleged by co1111ignor-Despatch of different goods-If
amounts to cheating under s. 415, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
On the production of a forwarding note for booking a consignment
of dry chillies to Calcutta, a railway wagon was allotted to the appellants
who loaded it without any help from any railway employee. The wa.11on
was rivetted and card labels were fixed on both sides. A railway receipt
.vas made out wherein the consignment was 'said to contain' 251 bags of
dry chillies.
The letters "L/U" were endorsed on the receipt meaning
that the responsibility of load.in~ . and unloading rested with the consipor.
There was no facility for weighing the goods at the loading station and
it was indicated that the weight was as given by the consignor by the en·
dorsement S.W.A. (Sender's weight accepted). The Wagon was attached
to a goods train which left for Calcutta. Two days later the seal on one
side of the wagon was found broken and when the wagon was examined
it was found to contain 197 bags of chaff instead of 251 bags of chillies.
The police investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet against the
appellant and .they were convicted of the offence of cheating and tho
conviction was confirmed by the High Court. It was found that the
appellants had obtained a sum of Rs. 5,500 from a third party by handing
over the railway receipt to him representing that they had booked 251
bags of chillies.
Jn- appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appellants had by deceiving the Station Master induced
him to deliver a railway receipt which they had used as a valuable security, but, the false representation made by them in obtaining the receipt,
in the form in which it was issued, did not cast any additional liability on
the Railway and therefore, the issue of the receipt did not cause any
damage or harm to the railway.
Hence no question of cheating the r1il ..
way or Station Master arose in the case.
[829 Fl
The railway did not run any additional risk or liability in acting upon
the representation of the ap~Jlants and issuing the receipt because, there
would be no presumption that the goods put in the wagon were chillies
since the railway did not accept the consignment as such but described
as allegedly containing 251 ba~s of chillies.
Nor was there any acceptance of the weight of the goods. In case of loss the appellants had to
prove that they had put on rd! 251 bags of chillies with their weight and
approximate value, before any liability of the railway could arise under
ss. 73 and 74 of the Indian Railways Act.
Under r. 15 of the Goods
Tariff General Rules the mention of the weight of the goods in the
receipt did. not amount to an admission in that behalf by the railway, and
Rule 22 read with Rule 24(2) only made a false declaration as to goods
in a forwarding note subiect to the penalty of a fine in addition to .the
liability to pay 'for the freight of the goods at the proper rate. (828 A-0]
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
Dominion of India
v.
Firm Museram Kishunprasad,
A.J.R.
1950
Nagpur 85 and Union of India v. S, p, Lekhu Reddiar. A.I.R.
1956
Madras 176, approved.
A

## Text

A
HARi SAO AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
October IS, 1969
823
B
[S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Indian Railways Act (9 of 1890), ss. 73 and 74 and Goods Tariff
Genernl Rules, rr. IS anJ 22-Scope of-Issue of railway receipt by rail·
way-Description, number and weight of goods not accepted b;1 railway
but only as alleged by co1111ignor-Despatch of different goods-If
amounts to cheating under s. 415, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
On the production of a forwarding note for booking a consignment
of dry chillies to Calcutta, a railway wagon was allotted to the appellants
who loaded it without any help from any railway employee. The wa.11on
was rivetted and card labels were fixed on both sides. A railway receipt
.vas made out wherein the consignment was 'said to contain' 251 bags of
dry chillies.
The letters "L/U" were endorsed on the receipt meaning
that the responsibility of load.in~ . and unloading rested with the consipor.
There was no facility for weighing the goods at the loading station and
it was indicated that the weight was as given by the consignor by the en·
dorsement S.W.A. (Sender's weight accepted). The Wagon was attached
to a goods train which left for Calcutta. Two days later the seal on one
side of the wagon was found broken and when the wagon was examined
it was found to contain 197 bags of chaff instead of 251 bags of chillies.
The police investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet against the
appellant and .they were convicted of the offence of cheating and tho
conviction was confirmed by the High Court. It was found that the
appellants had obtained a sum of Rs. 5,500 from a third party by handing
over the railway receipt to him representing that they had booked 251
bags of chillies.
Jn- appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appellants had by deceiving the Station Master induced
him to deliver a railway receipt which they had used as a valuable security, but, the false representation made by them in obtaining the receipt,
in the form in which it was issued, did not cast any additional liability on
the Railway and therefore, the issue of the receipt did not cause any
damage or harm to the railway.
Hence no question of cheating the r1il ..
way or Station Master arose in the case.
[829 Fl
The railway did not run any additional risk or liability in acting upon
the representation of the ap~Jlants and issuing the receipt because, there
would be no presumption that the goods put in the wagon were chillies
since the railway did not accept the consignment as such but described
as allegedly containing 251 ba~s of chillies.
Nor was there any acceptance of the weight of the goods. In case of loss the appellants had to
prove that they had put on rd! 251 bags of chillies with their weight and
approximate value, before any liability of the railway could arise under
ss. 73 and 74 of the Indian Railways Act.
Under r. 15 of the Goods
Tariff General Rules the mention of the weight of the goods in the
receipt did. not amount to an admission in that behalf by the railway, and
Rule 22 read with Rule 24(2) only made a false declaration as to goods
in a forwarding note subiect to the penalty of a fine in addition to .the
liability to pay 'for the freight of the goods at the proper rate. (828 A-0]
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
Dominion of India
v.
Firm Museram Kishunprasad,
A.J.R.
1950
Nagpur 85 and Union of India v. S, p, Lekhu Reddiar. A.I.R.
1956
Madras 176, approved.
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
.,
240 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
B
July 4, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Criminal
Appeal
No. 524 of 1964.
K. C. Dua and U. P. Singh, for the appellants.
D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg and Uir:a Datta, for the respondent.
L. M. Singhvi and S. P. Nayar, for the Union of India.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J. This appeal by special leave is from a judgment
and order of the High Court of Patna upholding the conviction
of the two appellants under s. 420 l.P.C. read with s. 34 but
reducing the sentence of imprisonment on each of them by
awarding rigorous imprisonment for three years in place of seven
years.
The imposition of fine of Rs. 6,000 on each of
the
appellants by the Sessions Judge was maintained PY the High
Court. The two appellants were charged with having cheated
the Assistant Station Master of Sheonarayanpur Railway Station
on or about the period 13th May 1960 to 12th May 1963 hy
dishonestly inducing them to make a railway receipt with false
particulars which was capable of being COJ\Verted into a valuable
security and thereby committed an offence punishable under
s. 420 I.P.C. Five other persons were charged along with the
appellants with having committed an offence punishable under
s. 120-B read with s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code but they were
acquitted. The appellants were also charged under s. 468 of the
Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted of this.
-
The facts about which there can be no dispute are as follows.
The appellant Shankar Sah met the Station Master of Sheonarayanpur Railway Station on May 11.. 1960 and produced a forwarding note for. booking a consignment of dry chillies to Calcutta.
A wagon was allotted to him and stabled in the shed on
May 12, 1960. On the day following both the appellants came
to the Station Master and the necessary allotment entry was made
in the forwarding note.
The loading was done by the appellants
without any help from any railway employee and the appellants
wanted to be supplied with rivets after the wagon was loaded by
them. Such supply being give? by the St~tion ~aster the)'.' put
. the rivets on the wagon.
A railway khalas1 exammed the rivets,
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
II
HAR! SAO v. BIHAR (Mitter, 1.)
& 25
sealed the wagon and fixed card labels on both sides of the
wagon prepared by the Station Master.
The railway receipt for
the goods was made out by the Station Master to the effect that
the consignment was "said to contain" 251 bags of dry chillies.
The letters L/U were endorsed on the railway receipt meaning
that the responsibility for loading and unloading ;if the consignment rested with the consignor.
There was no facility for weighing the goods at the station and a note was made that the weight
was as given by the consignor.
This was indicated by the
endorsement S.W.A. (sender's weight accepted). The wagon was
attached to a goods train on the. same day and carried forward out
of the Station on its way to Calcutta.
There were frequent checkings of the rivets and the seals of the wagon during the night of
J 3th May but on the morning of the 14th the seal on one side of
the wagon was broken and the seal card lying on the ground.
The wagon was detached and taken to a goods shed and checked
at about 2 p.m. on 15th May. It was found that the wagon
contained only 197 bags of chaff (Bhusa) instead of 251 bags of
dry chillies.
An entry was made in the station diary
and a
first information report was lodged on 18th May.
The police
submitted a charge sheet against the accused and the case proceeded to trial after the commitment enquiry.
The prosecution
examined several witnesses to establish that the appellants had
brought straw to the goods shed at Sheonarayanpur in place of
chillies and loaded the wagon therewith.
The Sessions Judge
did not accept the evidence of some of them but relied upon that
of P.W. 8, a cartman who gave testimony to the effect that he
along with others had loaded straw in the wagon mentioned.
There was evidence before the Sessions Judge that the < ppellants had obtained a sum of Rs. 5,500/-
from one Murarilal
Jhunjhunwala by handing over the railway receipt to him by
representing that they had booked 251 bags of chillies.
The
Sessions Judge held that the Station Master had not checked the
goods or verified the weight thereof but had acted on the representation of the appellants. According to him the appellants
were guilty of an offence under s. 420 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and
he sentenced them as already mentioned.
In appeal the learned Judge of the High Court after discussing the evidence felt satisfied that what "was found as a result
of the checking at 2 p.m. on 15th .May 1960 to be pre~ent in
the wagon was nothing but the consignment which had been
originally loaded by the appellants at Sheonarayanpur on the
afternoon of 13th May 1960". He further held that
" ... the representation made by the appellants to the
Station Master (P.W. 39) both orally and in the for-
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 2 S.C.R.
warding note which they had presented to him was a
false representation and on the strength of such
false representation the appellants had induced the
Stat.ion MasteD to make out for them the railway receipt
in respect of 251 bags of dry chillies. It is. manifest
that a valuable security such as a railway receipt is,
in respect of 251 bags of chillies had been delivered to
the appellants by we Station Master on the basis of
the false representation which they had made to him
both orally and in the forwarding note."
The learned Judge therefore held that the appellants had committed the offence of chearing acting together in pursuance of
their common intention.
It had been urged that the appellanis were not guilty of cheating
in as much as the Station Master had written on the railway
receipt that the consignment in. question was said to be 251 bags
of dry chillies and thus he could not be said to have acted upon
the declaration of the appellants . being correct.
Similarly with
regard to~the other endorsement on the railway receipt "S.W.A."
meaning "senders' weight accepted" it was made by the Station
Master acting upon the declaration of the appellants.
Under s. 415 of the Indian Penal Code a person is said to
cheat when he by deceiving another person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver. any property
to him, or to consent that he shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived
and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
There can be no doubt that the appellants had by deceiving the
Station Master induced him to deliver a railway receipt which
could be used as a valuable security; but assuming tha.t
the
appellants thereby induced the Station Master to make out the
railway receipt it will still have to be shown that the making out
of the receipt was likely to cause damage or harm to the railway
or the Station Master.
We have therefore to examine whether the issue of the railway receipt with the endorsements "said to contain" and "S.W.A."
were likely to cause any damage to the re:Jway. Under s.58 of
the Indian Railways Act the owner or person having charge of
any goods which are brought upon a railway for the purpose of
being carried thereon, has to deliver to a·railway servant appointed in that behalf an account in writing signed by such owner or
person and containing such description of the goods as may be
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARi SAO v. BlHAR (Mitter, J.)
827
sufficient to determine the raic which the railway administration
is entitled to charge in respect thereof. This section casts an
obligation on the owner or person having charge of goods to be
carried by a railway to gl'Ve a correct description thereof. Failure
in this respect may, under sub-s. (3) entitle the railway administration to charge in respe ~t of the carriage of the goods at a rate
not exceeding double the highest rate which may be in force at
the tin1e on the railway for any class of goods. Under s.72 a
person delivering to a railway administration goods to be carried
by railway has to execute a note (forwarding note) in which the
sender or his agent has to give such particulars in respect thereof
as may be required.
Section 73 provides for the general responsibility of a railway administration as a carrier of animals and
goods except from any of the causes specified therein. But under
the proviso to the section even in the case of loss, destruction etc.
from any of the said causes, the railway administration is not
relieved of its responsibility for the loss, destruction etc. of the
goods unless it proves that it has used reasonable foresight and
care in the carriage of the goods. Under s. 74 where goods are
tendered to a railway administration for carriage at a special
redu~ed rate known as 'the owner's risk rate' then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 73, the railway administration
is not to be responsible for any loss, destruction, damage etc.,
from whatever cause arising, except upon proof that such Joss,
damage, qestruction etc. was due to negligence or misconduct
on the part of the railway administration or any of its servants.
Under s.106 a person requested under s.58 to give an account
with respect to ·.any goods and giving one which is materially
false may be punished witll fine which may extend to Rs. 150
for every quintal or part of a quintal of tile goods in addition
to any rate or other charge to which the goods may be liable.
It is therefore clear tllat the railway administration may be
liable. f?r loss, destruction or non-delivery of the goods under.
s.73 1f It fails to use reasonable foresight and Cl\re in the carriage
of tile same and would also be similarly liable even in respect
of goo?s carried at special reduced rate if there was negligence
~nd misconduct oil it• part or any of its servants. Such liability
on t~e part of th~ railways arises whenever it issues a railway
receipt. The quest10n therefore arises as to whether the railway
r~ any. additional risk or liability in acting upon the representat10n of th~ appellants ~d mentioning. in the railway receipt the
goods consigned were swd to be 251 bags of chillies when in
fact they were only 197 bags of straw. There can be little doubt
that the railway did not run any additional risk.
In case the
goods were ~nsumed by fire or even s~olen from the wagon due
to any negligence
on the part of railway iidministration the
owner would have to prove that he had put on rail 251 bags of
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
chillies. He would also have to prove the weight of the chillies
A
and the approximate value thereof.
For this he would have to
call evidence to show how and when he acquired the goods and
the price he paid for them and exactly what quantity he luaded
•D the wagons.
There would be no presumption that the goods
put in the wagon were chillies because the railway did not accept
the consignment as such and described it as 251 bags allegedly
B
containing chillies. Nor was there any acceptance of the weight
of the goods by the railway.
The endorsement "S.W.A." would
negi<tive the plea, if any, that the weight was accepted by the
railway.
The endorsement "L/U" emphasised that the loading
and unloading being in charge of the consignor the railway could
not be held liable for any negligence in loading or unloading.
c
In this connection reference may be made to the Goods Tariff
Rules. Rule 15 of Part I of the Goods Tariff shows that :
"The weight, description and classification of goods and
quotation of rates as given in the railway receipt and
forwarding note are merely inserted for the purpose of
estimating the railway charges and the railway reserves
the right of re-measurement, re-weighment, reclassification of goods and re-ca.culation of rates and other
charges and correction of any other errors at the plwe
of destination and of collecting any amount that may
have been omitted or undercharged.
No admission is
conveyed by a railway receipt that the weight as shown
therein has been received or that the description of
goods as furnished by the consi6nor is correct."
Under Rule 22(1) every consignment of goods- when handed to
the railway for despatch must be accompanied by a forwarding
note which must be signed by the sender or his authorised agent
and must contain a declaration of the weight in accordance with
s.58 of the Indian Railways ADI and destination of the goods
consigned. Under Rule 24(2) if a materially false account is delivered with respect to the description of any goods, the person
who gifos such false account, and if he is not the owner, the owner
also, is, on.conviction by a Magistrate, liable to a fine which may
extend to Rs. 50/- per maund or part of a maund of the goods,
and such fine will be in addition to the rate to which the goods
may be liable.
In Doninion of India v. Firm Museram Kishunprasad(') a
a railway receipt was issued to the consignor qualified with the
statement that the wagon was said to contain 255 bags of coconuts.
As only 251 bags were received at the destination, the
plaintiff made a claim for the price of the 4 bags of coconuts by
(I) AIR. 1950 Nag. 85.
0
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
HAR! SAO v. BIHAR (Mitter, J.)
829
way of damages. It was held by the Nagpur High Court that
there was no proof that 255 bags had in fact been loaded.
RP·
ferring to R. 22 of the Goods Tariff General Rules it was said
that the receipt issued "qualified the number by stating that the
wagon was 'said to contain' 255 bags .... and the number was
mentioned merely to calculate the freight."
Reference was also
made to Rule 15 under which the mentioning of the weight in
the railway receipt did not amount to an admission of the
correctness of the statement and Jccording to Nagpur High Court
"this rule applies with even more vigour where the railway
receipt in addition contains the 'said to cc.1tain' remark."
In Union of India v. S.P.L. Lekhu Reddiar( 1 ) a claim was
made against the railway for short delivery of
11 bags.
The
railway receipt showed that the wagon was said to contain
200 bags of white toor.
It was urged there that as the seals
were intact at the end of the journey the responsibility for the
shortage must lie with the railway.
It was pointed out that this
would be so if the railway staff had loaded the goods after verifying them and in the circumstances of the case, the railway
could not be held responsible for any shortage so long as there
was no proof of tampering with the seals.
The decision in the
Nagpur case was followed in Madras and it was held that
the endorsement to the effect that the consigDment was 'said to
contain' a certain number of bags did not amount to any admission on the part of the railway administration that the said
number of bags had in fact been loaded.
It appears to us that the false representation made by the
appellants in obtaining the railway receipt in the form in which
it was issued did not cast any additional liability on the railway
and the issue of the railway receipt therefore was not likely to
cause any damage or harm to the railway.
No question of
cheating the railway or the Station Master therefore arose in this
case and the appeal must be allowed. The appellants are directed to be set at liberty. The fine, if paid, must be refunded.
Y.P.
Appeal allowed.
-----------·- - .. --
(1) A.l.R. 1956 Madras 176.