IMPORTANT POINT
Doing something for the offender is not abetment but rather doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit crime or otherwise would constitute abetment.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 107—Abetment—Railway Act, 1989—Section 143—94 Tickets of different trains, some filled-up as well unfilled reservation forms and Rs. 33,403/- were recovered from absconding accused—Respondent-accused working as reservation clerks at Railway Station were said to have abetted commission of offence u/s 143 Railway Act by absconding accused—Trial Court and Sessions Court found respondents guilty u/s 143(2) of the Act—High Court set aside conviction in revision—State appeal—Documents maintained at reservation office were not seized and no excess amount was found at cash counter and no extra cash was found on person of respondents—Fact stood proved that more than one ticket had been issued from different counters at the same time but possibility of absconding accused to have associates with him who presented reservation forms in different counters could not be ruled out—Possibility of respondents might not have any hands could not be ruled out—Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate offender to commit crime would constitute abetment—No independent evidence that respondents had intentionally aided absconding accused and thus abetted him in commission of offence—No interference was warranted.
       Held : The fact that more than one ticket had been issued from different counters at the same time is not disputed. The possibility of the said Suresh Shah to have associates with him who presented reservation forms in different counters cannot, thus, be ruled out. No doubt Respondents while discharging their public duties were required to maintain transparency, but admittedly the Investigating Officer did not conduct any investigation as to whether the said Suresh Shah who allegedly had been carrying on systematic business in procuring reservation for passengers, had any associate or not. He is a resident of Bombay. According to the prosecution he used to operate from the said place. Nothing has been brought on records to show as to whether he had regularly been operating from Indore or not. The prosecution is silent in regard thereto. Reservation forms might have been filled up by Suresh Shah but then the possibility that Respondents who were working in three different counters on two different occasions might not have any hands therein cannot be ruled out. They were not expected to verify the handwritings of a person while issuing tickets. They as noticed hereinbefore, were required to deal with a person standing before them very quickly.(Para 13)
       How the handwriting of one person in different forms could have been checked by Respondents is open to guess. Only for bulk tickets, approval was to be taken but as noticed hereinbefore an associate of the same person may stand in the queue and demand reservation forms from the reservation windows on more than one occasion. Once a filled-up form is passed over, the reservation clerks had admittedly no discretion in the matter but to issue tickets.(Para 14)
       A person, it is trite, abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of, the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate, the commission thereof would attract the third clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Doing something for the offender is not abetment. Doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment. Admittedly, the first and second part of the said provision has no application. No illegal omission on the part of Respondents has been established. Admittedly in issuing the tickets, Respondents have not violated any rules. Ex facie, they have also not violated any direction contained in any circular issued by an appropriate authority in that behalf. (Paras 18 and 19)
       Moreover, it must be borne in mind that we are dealing with a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. If two views are possible, ordinarily this Court would not interfere therewith. The State has not been able to show any illegality in the judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, do not intend to interfere therewith.(Para 22)
       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 30—Confession of co-accused—Such statement was required to be corroborated by independent evidence. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Respondents were working as reservation clerks. They were posted at Indore Railway Station. The Assistant Sub Inspector of General Railway Police, Indore, on an information received by him that one person had illegally been purchasing tickets from reservation counters, came to the reservation office and in the process apprehended a person named Suresh Shah. He was from Mumbai. From a search conducted, 94 tickets of different trains and some filled up as well as some unfilled reservation demand forms were recovered from him. A sum of Rs. 33,403/- was also found in his possession. A First Information Report was lodged. Allegedly, during investigation of the said case, he was found to have been carrying business in procuring reservation tickets illegally. Respondents herein were said to have abetted in commission of the said offence. On the said charge, Respondents herein with the aforementioned Suresh Shah were prosecuted.

3. Whereas the said Suresh Shah was charged under Section 143 (1) of the Railway Act, 1989, Respondents herein were charged under Section 143(2) thereof. When the case was at an advanced stage, the said Suresh Shah absconded. The trial, however, was concluded against Respondents. They were found guilty of commission of the offence charged against them and were sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default whereof they were directed to undergo further 6 months rigorous imprisonment. They preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Sessions Judge which was transferred to the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore and registered as Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1999. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 1.05.2002. A revision application was filed before the High Court by them which by reason of the impugned judgment has been allowed. The State of Madhya Pradesh is, thus, before us.

4. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, principally raised two contentions before us. Firstly, it was submitted that although there is no direct evidence as against Respondents herein but from the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, it must be held to have been proved that the railway tickets were being clandestinely sold in black market and unless Respondents had abetted the main accused Suresh Shah and could not have been found to be in possession of 80 tickets involving 94 reservations. It was contended that Respondents were found to have issued the tickets and keeping in view the timings of issuance thereof, as has been noticed at paragraph 21 of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, it would have been impossible for the said Suresh Shah to book so many tickets within a few hours, viz., from 0933 hrs. to 1916 hours.

5. It was also submitted that Respondents did not raise any particular defence. The High Court, the learned counsel would submit, also committed a serious error in opining that Respondents had not been asked about the circumstantial evidence or evidence appearing against them by the learned Trial Judge while examining them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.

7. Before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties, we may briefly notice the admitted facts. At the relevant time, 11 reservation counters were functioning at the Indore Railway Station. Reservation offices at the said place function from 0800 hours to 1400 hours and then from 1410 hours to 2000 hours. An employee works only for six hours in one reservation counter. Two of the reservation clerks were absent. The offence is said to have taken place on 2nd October, 1995, i.e., just before the ensuing Durga Puja festival. There were long queues. Ordinarily, minimum 2-3 minutes time was required for issuance of one ticket.

8. Indisputabl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2006 Supreme(SC) 996

IMPORTANT POINT Doing something for the offender is not abetment but rather doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit crime or otherwise would constitute abetment.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Doing something for the offender is not abetment but rather doing something with knowledge so as to facilitate him to commit crime or otherwise would constitute abetment.