Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam – Appellant
Versus
Mathew K. Cherian and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4169 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2408 of 2017]
With
J. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 139-140 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 9225-9226/2022]
Decided On : 09-01-2025
(A) Railways Act, 1989 – Section 143 – Unauthorised business of procuring and supplying railway e-tickets – High Court, vide impugned order, quashed criminal proceedings – Section 143 criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of mode of procurement and supply – Mere fact of system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after enactment of the Act does not render provision in Section 143 toothless to combat illegal sale of e-tickets – Section 143 makes no distinction between physical and online sale of tickets – Mischief that provision seeks to remedy is that there should not be illegal and unauthorised procurement and sale of tickets, whatever be the mode – physical or online – Electronic and internet services have not only become indispensable but offer significant advantages to public – Having regard to comprehensive phraseology employed in Section 143, net of its coverage is wide enough to encompass regulation of conduct of ticketing agents and to protect public from unscrupulous elements trying to defraud them by sale of valueless tickets – Section 143, a penal provision, has been enacted to tackle a social crime – Indian Railways is a keystone of our country’s infrastructure – Any effort to disrupt integrity and stability of ticketing system has to be stopped on its tracks – Section 143 does not criminalise creating multiple user IDs – Penal provisions have to be read strictly and narrowly as a general rule – Section 143, by being completely silent on creation of multiple user IDs, penalises actions of only unauthorised agents and not unauthorised actions of authorised agents – Criminal proceedings partly restored. (Paras 27, 28, 29, 31, 36 and 40)
(B) Interpretation of Statutes – Statutory interpretation has to follow certain principles which have been formulated through legal precedents – No court can refuse to enforce a provision on sole basis of provision predating any subsequent development regarding ticketing process – If it can be demonstrated that a statutory provision is broad enough to envelop subsequent developments, even if developments were not envisioned by Legislature, the provision would stay operational – If language of particular statute under consideration is clear and unambiguous, it is not for courts to add to or delete any words from statute in guise of ascertaining what could have been Legislative intent. (Paras 21 and 26)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Quashing of criminal proceeding – Quashing of a criminal proceeding can take place if FIR does not reveal a crime or if fact situation be such that continuance of criminal proceedings would result in abuse of process causing injustice to accused – Power of quashing is not unfettered or unlimited – Judicial discretion has to be exercised judiciously. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
Common question of law touching interpretation of Section 143 of Railways Act, 1989 is involved in these appeals by special leave.
Findings of Court:
Lead appeal deserves to be allowed and consequently, the criminal proceedings against Mathew need to be restored. It is ordered accordingly.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA J.
INTRODUCTION
1. Common question of law touching interpretation of Section 143 of the Railways Act, 19891 [the Act] is involved in these appeals by special leave; hence, we propose to decide the same by this common judgment.
2. In the first of the two sets of appeals2 [the lead appeal] the judgment and order3 [in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1991/2016 dated 22.09.2016] of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum4 [Kerala High Court] is assailed whereby criminal proceedings under Section 143 of the Act launched against the first respondent-Mathew K. Cheriian5 [Mathew] was quashed.
3. In the connected appeals, the appellant - J. Ramesh6 [Ramesh] has assailed the judgment and order7 [Crl. O.P. No. 18701/2020, 18703/2020 and Crl. MP. Nos. 7328/2020, 7329/2020] of the High Court of Judicature at Madras8 [Madras High Court] refusing to quash the criminal proceedings launched against Ramesh under Section 143 of the Act.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The factual scenario of the two sets of appeals are not too complicated. The facts which are germane are noted as a precursor to our discussion.
5. The prosecution case in the lead appeal is that on 11.03.2016, on reliable information being disclosed to the Inspector, Railway Protection Force9 [RPF] that unauthorised business of procuring and supplying railway e-tickets was being carried out in the office of Mathew, Crime Case No. 524/2016 under Section 143 of the Act was registered and a search conducted thereat. During the search and seizure operation, one employee named Joby Jose of Kosamattam Finance, a non-banking finance company (of which Mathew happened to be the managing director) was arrested and 17 pieces of evidence were seized. In his confessional statement, Joby Jose stated he was working under the supervision of Mathew. On the basis of this statement, Mathew was made co-accused in Crime Case No. 524/2016. He was accused of creating fraudulent user IDs with the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation10 [IRCTC] web portal to procure and peddle railway tickets for profit, without being an agent authorised to procure and supply railway tickets and, therefore, operating an unauthorised business for procurement and supply of railway tickets. Aggrieved, Mathew moved the Kerala High Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 197311 [Cr.P.C.] seeking quashing of the proceedings. The Kerala High Court, vide the impugned order, quashed the criminal proceedings emanating from Crime Case No. 524/2016. Dissatisfied thereby, the Inspector, RPF is in appeal.
6. The connected appeals arise out of Case Crime No. 3116/2019 and Case Crime No. 600/2020. The case of the prosecution is that Ramesh and his son are the owners of “Big Top Travels” which is an authorised agent for railway e-tickets. On 05.12.2019, Case Crime No. 3116/2019 came to be registered against Ramesh under Section 143 of the Act on the basis of a search and seizure operation conducted by a special team of the RPF in the shop premises of Ramesh. The offence alleged against him is that he has been supplying e-tickets to various customers, and that these e-tickets had been booked through multiple user IDs. Case Crime No. 600/2020 was registered against Ramesh, also under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act for his involvement in fraudulent activities such as supply of Tatkal e-tickets by creating multiple personal-user IDs and issuing unauthorised e-tickets procured through IRCTC website, contrary to IRCTC Rules. Ramesh, feeling aggrieved by initiation of criminal action by the respondent- authorities, approached the Madras High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings. The Madras High Court, however, refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Dissatisfied with the impugned order of the Madras High Court, Ramesh has questioned the same in the connected appeals.
SUBMISSIONS
7. For the sake of brevity, the submissions advanced by the parties in both sets of the appeals ar
(1) Unauthorised business of procuring and supplying railway e-tickets – Section 143 of Railways Act, 1989, has been enacted to tackle a social crime – Section 143 penalises actions of only unauthori....
Unauthorized procurement or supply of railway tickets under Section 143 requires clear evidence of such actions, which was absent in this case.
The unauthorized sale of e-tickets through online platforms is prohibited under Section 143 of the Railways Act, covering both physical and online ticket sales.
Authorized agents of IRCTC cannot be prosecuted under Section 143 of the Indian Railways Act for actions taken within the scope of their authorization, and the jurisdiction of the Railway Protection ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions to determine the lack of prima facie evidence for the alleged offenses, leading to the quashing of the proceedi....
Seizure of unauthorized Railway tickets – Order taking cognizance must reflect application of judicial mind by Magistrate.
The absence of independent witnesses during the seizure process significantly impacted the prosecution's case, leading the court to modify the initial sentencing to a fine only.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
