IMPORTANT POINT
Seizure of unauthorized Railway tickets – Order taking cognizance must reflect application of judicial mind by Magistrate.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Poonam Kumari Singh, learned Advocate for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present quashing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 1973 assailing the impugned order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Samastipur in RPF(SMI) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2015 (CR No. 499 of 2015), whereby the learned Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 against the petitioner and others.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present quashing application are that on 16.05.2015 the Central Intelligence Bureau (CIB) on a confidential information, keeping vigil over the Tatkal Railway Ticket Booking Counter. Suspecting some foul they entered in the booking cabin of the petitioner, where Station Superintendent, Station Master and others were present. In course of search, the CIB team recovered two tatkal tickets inside the counter but on calculating the cash, found that Rs.5,870/- was deficient as per cash summary. The petitioner being dealing clerk stated that the money of two tickets are unpaid by the Station Superintendent and Station Master. Even on taking the sums of both the tickets and deducting it from deficient amount, Rs. 350 was still found deficient for which no reasonable explanation was given by the petitioner. Accordingly the seizure list was prepared and both the tickets and an amount of Rs. 2,500/- was seized.

4. On the basis of the afore-noted written report, the investigation continued, through the Railway Protection Force, Darbhanga and consequently chargesheet has been submitted on 29.10.2018 before the learned Court below. The matter was placed before the learned jurisdictional Court; and vide order dated 13.03.2019, the impugned order taking cognizance has been passed for the offences afore-noted.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drawing the attention of the impugned order taking cognizance, primarily contended that apart from the order being non-speaking, prima facie it appears that the learned jurisdictional Court has not applied his judicial mind, in as much as, a place which was kept blank in the order has been filled up with the word ‘sangyan’ and the order impugned appears to be written by the office clerk.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 and vigorously contended that from the reading of the section it clearly appears that the subject penal provision is not attracted against any railway employees, as it is categorically stated that - “If any person, not being a railway servant or an agent authorized in this behalf,—(a) carries on the business of procuring and supplying tickets for travel on a railway or for reserved accommodation for journey in a train; or (b) purchases or sells or attempts to purchase or sell tickets with a view to carrying on any such business either by himself or by any other person”.

7. The petitioner being dealing clerk in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the penal provision as provided under Section 143 is not attracted.

8. It is further contended that admittedly the entire investigation was conducted and charge-sheet has been submitted by the investigating officer of the Railway Protection Force, Darbhanga; nevertheless, the officer of the Railway Protection Force is not authorized to investigate and submit charge-sheet, and thus on the basis of which, if any proceeding is initiated, that is non-est and having no sanction of law.

9. To support the aforesaid contention reliance has been placed on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balkishan A. Devidayal vs. State of Maharashtra (Manu/SC/ 0112/1981). The learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to paragraph