1969 (10) TMI 93 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Orders Release & Refund in Cheating Case

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the appellants to be set at liberty and refunding the fines if paid. The court concluded that the false ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.2. Imposition of fine and sentence reduction.3. False representation and issuance of railway receipt.4. Liability and risk to the railway administration.5. Applicability of relevant sections of the Indian Railways Act.6. Interpretation of Goods Tariff Rules.7. Precedent cases and their relevance.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:The appellants were convicted under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for cheating the Assistant Station Master by inducing him to issue a railway receipt with false particulars. The High Court upheld this conviction but reduced the sentence from seven years to three years of rigorous imprisonment.2. Imposition of Fine and Sentence Reduction:The High Court maintained the imposition of a fine of Rs. 6,000 on each appellant, as originally ordered by the Sessions Judge, while reducing the imprisonment term. The appellants were initially sentenced to seven years, which the High Court reduced to three years.3. False Representation and Issuance of Railway Receipt:The appellants induced the Station Master to issue a railway receipt for 251 bags of dry chillies, which actually contained 197 bags of chaff. The Station Master made the receipt based on the appellants' false representation, which was indicated by the endorsements 'said to contain' and 'S.W.A.' (sender's weight accepted).4. Liability and Risk to the Railway Administration:The court examined whether the false representation and the issuance of the railway receipt caused any additional liability or risk to the railway. It was concluded that the railway did not run any additional risk as the receipt did not constitute an acceptance of the consignment's weight or contents. The endorsements 'L/U' (loading/unloading by consignor) and 'S.W.A.' negated any presumption of acceptance by the railway.5. Applicability of Relevant Sections of the Indian Railways Act:Sections 58, 72, 73, 74, and 106 of the Indian Railways Act were analyzed. These sections outline the responsibilities and liabilities of the railway administration and consignors. The court emphasized that the railway administration's liability arises only when it fails to use reasonable foresight and care, and the endorsements on the receipt did not increase this liability.6. Interpretation of Goods Tariff Rules:Goods Tariff Rules 15 and 22 were discussed. Rule 15 states that the weight and description of goods in the railway receipt are for estimating charges and do not constitute an admission of correctness. Rule 22 requires a forwarding note with a declaration of weight. The court concluded that these rules supported the view that the railway did not accept the consignment's weight or description as correct.7. Precedent Cases and Their Relevance:The court referred to previous cases, such as Dominion of India v. Firm Museram Kishunprasad and Union of India v. S.P.L. Lekhu Reddiar, which held that endorsements like 'said to contain' do not amount to an admission by the railway. These cases reinforced the conclusion that the railway did not incur additional liability due to the false representation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the appellants to be set at liberty and refunding the fines if paid. The court concluded that the false representation did not cause any additional liability or harm to the railway, negating the charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC.