Back
2016 Supreme(Ker) 1520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
Mathew K. Cherian - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 1991 of 2016
Decided On : 22-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Bechu Kurian Thomas (Adv.), Paul Jacob (Adv.), Enoch David Simon Joel (Adv.), S. Sreedev (Adv.), Rony Jose (Adv.), George A. Cherian (Adv.)
For the Respondent: M.K. Pushpalatha (Adv.), John Mathew (Adv.), C.S. Dias (Adv.).
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offense under Section 143 of the Railways Act requires the tickets to be procured by the offender, and the use of internet medium to issue tickets to a third party is not contemplated under the section for the purpose of considering it as an offense.
Headnote:
Railways Act - Challenge to Registration of Crime under Section 143 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989, which penalizes unauthorized carrying on of business of procuring and supplying railway tickets. The court interpreted the section in the context of online ticket procurement and highlighted that the offense requires the tickets to be procured by the offender, which was not the case in the present scenario. The court emphasized that the use of internet medium to issue tickets to a third party is not contemplated under Section 143 for the purpose of considering it as an offense. The court also noted that the offense is not attracted even if one assumes that the accused's action would amount to supplying tickets. The court ultimately set aside and quashed the entire proceeding based on the occurrence report.
Fact of the Case:
A crime was registered against the petitioner and employees of his company under Section 143 of the Railways Act, alleging that they created fake user IDs with the IRCTC portal to procure and supply railway tickets to travelers. The petitioner challenged the occurrence report, arguing that no offense under Section 143 of the Act had been made out against him or his employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the nature of the offense committed by the petitioner and employees, emphasizing that the offense under Section 143 requires the tickets to be procured by the offender, which was not the case in the present scenario. The court also highlighted that misusing a user ID for purchasing a ticket by a genuine person is not an offense as contemplated under Section 143 of the Act. The court ultimately set aside and quashed the entire proceeding based on the occurrence report.
Issues: The key issue before the court was whether the actions of the petitioner and employees constituted an offense under Section 143 of the Railways Act, specifically in the context of online ticket procurement and supply.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offense under Section 143 of the Railways Act requires the tickets to be procured by the offender, and the use of internet medium to issue tickets to a third party is not contemplated under the section for the purpose of considering it as an offense. The court emphasized that the offense is not attracted even if one assumes that the accused's action would amount to supplying tickets.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the entire proceeding based on the occurrence report.
ORDER :
This Crl.M.C. is filed challenging registration of a crime against the petitioner under Section 143 (1)(a) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act).
2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a Non Banking Finance Company registered with RBI. They provide various services to the customers. A crime has been registered against the petitioner and employees of his Company, alleging that they have created various fake user ID with the portal of IRCTC to procure and supply railway tickets to various persons. Alleging an offence as above, a crime has been registered against the petitioner as Crime No.524/2016 of Kottayam RPF Post. An occurrence report in this regard has been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, Annexure A1 is the report. The petitioner challenges Annexure A1 occurrence report alleging that no offence under Section 143 of the Act has been made out against him or his employees.
3. Occurrence report is similar to the First Information Report. Normally this Court would not have interfered with the occurrence report. However a statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent detailing the nature of offence committed by the petitioner. At a glance, it can be treated as a complaint against the petitioner to defend their action. The statement discloses that the petitioner created various fake user IDs in the name of different persons with the IRCTC portal to procure and supply railway tickets to travellers.
4. The case of the Railway is that since the petitioner is not Railway's agent and authorised to supply the railway tickets, an offence under Section 143 of the Act is made out. It is appropriate to refer Section 143 of the Act which reads as follows:
143. Penalty for unauthorised carrying on of business of procuring and supplying of railway tickets.- (1) If any person, not being a railway servant or an agent authorised in this behalf, -
(a) carries on the business of procuring and supplying tickets for travel on a railway or from 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,
he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and shall also forfeit the tickets which he do so procures, supplies, purchases, sells or attempts to purchase or sell:
Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in judgment of the court, such punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for a term of one month or a fine of five thousand rupees.
(2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under this section shall, whether or not such offence is committed, be punishable with the same punishment as is provided for the offence.
5. The Act was enacted much before the advent of e-ticket system. The object of Section 143 is to prevent procurement of ticket for travelling on railway or in a reserved compartment or journey in a train by any person with the ticket not being issued by railway servant or by an authorised agent. It appears that Railway wants to ensure the authenticity of the tickets issued to the travellers on a travel in a railway. It appears that many travellers were travelling on railway in a ticket not being issued to them and issued in the name of third parties. The Railway Act wants to ensure that the ticket is issued by railway servant or agent authorised on this behalf as the case may be to a genuine travellers.
6. The question before this Court arises in this context is whether purchasing of online tickets through the website of IRCTC by a traveller through a facility provided by the petitioner or staff would amounts to procuring and supplying tickets for travelling on a railway. In this regard two aspects have to be noted:- One is that ticket is purchased in the name of traveller. Secondly the ti
