HARI SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Section 420, I. P. C. read with Section 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 by 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 by dishonestly inducing him to make a railway receipt with false particulars which was capable of being converted into a valuable security and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420, I. P. C. Five other persons were charged along with the appellants with having committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted. The appellants were also charged under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted of this.

(2.) 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 given by the Station Master they put the rivets on the wagon. A railway khalasi examined the rivets, 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 of 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 checking of the rivets and the seals of the wagon during the night of 13th 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 trail 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 Session 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.

(3.) There was evidence before the Session Judge that the appellants had obtained a sum of Rs. 5,500 from one Murarilal Jhunijhunwala by handing over the railway receipt to him by representing that they had booked 251 bags of chillies. The Session 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 Section 420 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and he sentenced them as already mentioned.