IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized procurement or supply of railway tickets under Section 143 requires clear evidence of such actions, which was absent in this case.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 31-10-2023 passed by the XXXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Railways), Bangalore in C.C.No.3401 of 2023 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Rohan Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Prabhu M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts, in Brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be an IIT Graduate from IIT Kharagpur with a deep passion for entrepreneurship. The petitioner begins a start up called ‘buyhatke.com’ to help consumers save money during online transaction by serving as a product price comparison online browser extension. The petitioner subsequently in the month of August 2017 develops a software tool called ‘Tatkalforsure’ which auto fills the details of travellers intending to book Tatkal tickets on official IRCTC website. The Indian Railways had just then developed and promoted the concept of IRCTC Tatkal tickets which are limited tickets reserved solely for last minute ticket bookings and change of plans of travellers hoping to utilize the services of the Indian Railways. Tatkal ticket booking would open at 10 a.m. for AC class and at 11 a.m. for non-AC class one day in advance from the actual date of start of the train.

4. The petitioner claims that in order to allay the concern of a potential traveller, he developed a web extension/app that would auto-fill details of a potential traveller on the IRCTC website to expedite the process of booking a Tatkal ticket. The Tatkal website of Railways used to take 5 to 7 minutes, but in the tool developed by the petitioner the ticket would get generated in 45 seconds. This became very popular. Initially the petitioner was doing it for free. In the month of February 2020, the petitioner would do two acts – one, limit the bookings that would be booked through his extension to 10 and charge Rs.30/- per booking. This caught the eye of the Railways as he was allegedly charging Rs.30/- per ticket. Though the petitioner claimed that he was paying relevant taxes and GST on all the transactions done, a notice was issued to him on 29-09-2020, the petitioner was summoned and enquiry against him was made for offences punishable under Section 143 of the Act and the laptop through which the petitioner was doing his extension work comes to be seized and on the alleged confession of the petitioner, the respondent registered a crime. Long thereafter, a final report after 3 years of registration of crime comes to be filed before the concerned Court and the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 143 of the Act. Taking of cognizance has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the ingredients of Section 143 of the Act are not, even in the remotest sense, present in the case at hand. The petitioner has neither procured nor distributed railway tickets as is necessary under Section 143 of the Act. The learned counsel would submit that permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. He would seek to place reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Kerala which dealt with similar circumstance.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri M Ajay Prabhu would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has indulged in procuring and distributing tickets. The concerned Court has now taken cognizance of the offence. Since the Court has taken cognizance of the offence based upon the statement of the petitioner, further proceedings should be permitted to be continued.

He would further emphasize on the fact that when the Railway Protection Force Police had questioned, the petitioner had confessed th