Babulal vs Railway Police, Central Station, Madras-3

Gokulakrishnan, J.—The Petitioner-accused has been convicted u/s 114(1) of the Indian Railways Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.

The prosecution case was that the accused, who is not a railway servant nor an authorised agent of the Railways, was found purchasing tickets

at Counter No. 9 of the Madras Central Railway-station and parting with the possession of the same to a third party.

The Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate, in paragraph 13 of his judgment, states that the accused purchased tickets on behalf of others and

parted with them on payment of the usual fares plus incidental expenses incurred by the accused, for purchasing the tickets. In paragraph 15 of his

judgment, the Magistrate further states that in any event the existence of such a business run by the accused is bound to lead to a lot of

malpractices and cause inconveniences and difficulties to the really deserving travelling public. Nowhere in his judgment, the Magistrate has

discussed the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence u/s 114 , Indian Railways Act. There cannot be any offence in relation to that Section

unless it is made out that the accused had sold or attempted to sell any ticket or any half of a return ticket. Nor there is any proof as to the accused

parting with the possession of a ticket against which reservation of a seat or berth has been made to enable any other person to travel therewith. It

is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused had purchased ticket in the name of some one and allowed some other person to travel

therewith, in order to attract the mischief u/s 114. S. 114 also takes in some other types of offences in respect of purchasing and selling railway

tickets. But as far as the present case is concerned, the charge of the prosecution is that the accused had purchased tickets at Counter No. 9 of the

Madras Central Railway Station and parted with the possession of the same to third parties. None of the third parties who are alleged to have

purchased tickets from the accused has been examined in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor rightly conceded that the prosecution has not

proved the guilt of the accused by examining those third parties.

I am of the view that the prosecution has neither proved its case nor the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence u/s 114 as having been

committed by the accused.

In these circumstances, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the Petitioner are set aside and this Criminal revision petition is allowed. The

fine, if paid, is ordered to be refunded to the Petitioner,