P. K. Bahri ( 1 ) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been broughtagainst judgment dated 7/05/1976 of Additional District Judge by whichhe had allowed the appeal of the Union of India and had set aside the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge dated 28/01/1975 and haddismissed the suit of the appellant seeking recovery of Rs. 2,817. 92 paise. ( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that a consignment comprising of 236 bagsof Bajra was booked from Rampur Phul Railway Station for Rohtak on 1/03/1967. The appellant is an endorsee in the railway receipt. It isthe case of the appellant that at the time when the delivery of the goodswas taken from the railways, 10 bags of Bajra were short delivered and itis only after two years that remaining 40 bags were offered for deliveryi. e. on 16/07/1969 and they were in badly damaged condition. Aftercalculating the value of the damaged goods, the plaintiff claimed the saidamount alongwith cost and interest. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court had held the Union of India negligent in nottaking proper care of the goods during the period the goods remainedeither in custody of the railway or in custody of the police and thus, passedthe decree. ( 4 ) THE Appellate Court, however, found that the goods had beenseized in the theft case and were in custody of the Court and efforts to getreleased the goods made by the appellant from the Court had not succeededand taking resort to the provisions of Section 73 (d ). the first Appellate Courtheld that no liability can be fixed on the railway for the deterioration of thegoods which took place when the goods remained in Court custody anddeterioration took place due to legal process. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that goods haddeteriorated in quality because of negligence of the railway in not takingproper care of the goods. He has urged that as the goods were stolen bythe employees of the railways, mere fact that the goods were later onrecovered and kept by the police in Court custody does not absolve therailway of their liability to reimburse the appellant for the damages whichoccurred to the goods because of they being kept in police station in thatthreft case. He has urged that as the goods were stolen bythe employees of the railways, mere fact that the goods were later onrecovered and kept by the police in Court custody does not absolve therailway of their liability to reimburse the appellant for the damages whichoccurred to the goods because of they being kept in police station in thatthreft case. He has placed reliance on three judgments namely, E. I. Railway Company v. Janakidas Marwari, A. I. R. 1929 Calcutta 510, Trilokinath v. Governor- General, A. I. R. 1951 Allahabad 489 and Union of India v. Imperial Tobacco Company, A. I. R. 1959 Madhya Pradesh 232. In thesejudgments, the well-known principle of law has been laid down that if anyloss occurs due to theft taking place, the railway, being the bailees, have toexercise proper care and precaution in preserving the goods. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute about the principle of law laid down in thesethree judgments. If the damage to the goods occurs due to not takingproper care by the railway authorities, obviously the liability of the railwayauthority always remains. However, in the present case, the facts are somewhat different. The goods were consigned on March I, 1967 and 40 bagswere stolen by the railway officials on 15/03/1967 when the F. I. R. wasregistered and soon thereafter the goods were recovered from the theives andwere kept can the police station. As the goods have been recovered fromthe theives soon after they were stolen, it is evident that no deterioration ofthe goods took place during the period the goods were stolen and subsequently recovered by the police. . The goods in its proper condition wererecovered and kept in the police station by the police, so it cannot be saidthat the loss and deterioration had occurred on acount of theft beingcommitted in respect of the said goods. ( 7 ) THE short question is whether the railways could be held to beliable for the damage occurring to the goods when the goods remained seizedand were in legal process. It is admitted by Bal Mukund, Munim of theplaintiff, the solitary witness examined by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff/appellant had also been making applications to the Court concerned forgetting released the goods from the Court custody on superdari but withoutsuccess. It is admitted by Bal Mukund, Munim of theplaintiff, the solitary witness examined by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff/appellant had also been making applications to the Court concerned forgetting released the goods from the Court custody on superdari but withoutsuccess. Ultimately, the goods were returned by the police under theorders of the Court to the railway on June 2, 1969 and thereafter the goodswere delivered to the appellant/plaintiff and by that time the goods, admittedly, had deteriorated in value. ( 8 ) SECTION 73 of the Indian Railway Act, 1890 clearly brings theexceptions where the railway would not be responsible and one of theexceptions carved sets is in Clause d which makes it clear that the railwaywould not be responsible for any damage and destruction or deterioration incase of arrest, restrain or seizure under legal process. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that if thegoods are seized from the possession of the railways, only then this provisioncan be taken resort by the railways in escaping the liability. I am afraidthat this contention raised by the Counsel for the appellant has no force asthere is no limitation placed in Clause d . Here the goods were stolen andwere soon after recovered and were seized and remained in legal process andobviously if any deterioration has taken place in the goods during this periodof seizure and legal process, the liability cannot be imposed on the railways. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion. I find no illegality in the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. I dismiss the appeal but leavethe parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.