Railways Act, 1989 – s.143 – In the first of the appeal (lead appeal), M was accused of creating fraudulent user IDs with the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation 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 – Crime case u/s.143 of the 1989 Act was registered – M filed application u/s.482 CrPC – The High Court, vide the impugned order, quashed the criminal proceedings – In the another connected appeal, the offence alleged against R, an authorised agent, was that he has been supplying e-tickets to various customers, and that these e-tickets had been booked through multiple user IDs – Crime case u/s.143 of the 1989 Act was registered – R filed application u/s.482 before the High Court – The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings – Correctness: Held: S.143, on its plain language, prohibits any person, other than a railway servant or an authorised agent, to conduct the business of procurement and supply of railway tickets – The provision does not specify the modalities of the procurement and supply – Hence, if the natural and ordinary meaning is given to the section, keeping in mind the objective and purpose of the legislation, it admits of no doubt that this provision criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of the mode of procurement and supply – The mere fact of the system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after the enactment of the Act does not render the provision in s.143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets – S.143, importantly, makes no distinction between physical and online sale of tickets – The mischief that the 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 – In the lead appeal, the facts of the case prima facie reveal the commission of an offence u/s.143 of the Act – M, without the authorisation of the railways, was carrying on a business of procurement and supply of railway tickets – The allegations against M taken at face value fulfil the elements required u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act – In the connected appeals, R was an authorised agent of the railways carrying on the business of procurement and supply of railway tickets – S.143 only deals with the actions of unauthorised persons and does not mandate a procedure to be followed by the authorised agents for procuring or supplying tickets to its customers – The nature of allegations against R in the connected appeal, though serious, s.143 would not be attracted insofar as he is concerned – To sum up, M not being an authorised agent has to face the proceedings against him while R, being an authorised agent, cannot be proceeded against u/s.143 of the Act for alleged breach of any of the terms and conditions of the contract – Thus, criminal proceedings against M are restored and the proceedings against R are hereby quashed. [Paras 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40] Interpretation of Statutes – Statutory provision – Subsequent developments:
Held: Statutory interpretation has to follow certain principles which have been formulated through legal precedents – No court can refuse to enforce a provision on the sole basis of the provision predating any subsequent development regarding the ticketing process – If it can be demonstrated that a statutory provision is broad enough to envelop the subsequent developments, even if the developments were not envisioned by the legislature, the provision would stay operational. [Para 21]
Interpretation of Statutes – Language of statute – Addition or deletion of words:
Held: It is settled that if the language of the particular statute under consideration is clear and unambiguous, it is not for the courts to add to or delete any words from the statute in the guise of ascertaining what could have been the legislative intent. [Para 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.