C.C.No.153/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (FOR RAILWAYS)
SECUNDERABAD
Present: Sri K. SAI KIRAN II Metropolitan Magistrate (for Railways)
Secunderabad
Wednesday the 17th Day of August, 2022
C.C. No. 153 of 2022
BETWEEN:
The Sub-inspector, Railway Protection Force, Hyderabad Post. … Complainant
AND
Sulthan Initiyaz Ali, S/o. Mohammed Zahed Ali, Aged about 30 years, R/o. H.No.17-3-640, Zafar Road, Yakutpura, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500 023, Telangana ….Accused
This case is coming before me on 17.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Public Prosecutor for the Railways and Sri.G.Vasudeva Rao, learned counsel for the Accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
- : J U D G M E N T : -
1)The Sub-inspector, Railway Protection Force, Hyderabad Post filed a complaint in Crime No.87/2022 for the offence under Section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act.
2)The brief facts of the case are as follows : On 07.03.2022 at about 17.00 hrs, the complainant and his staff conducted confidential watch at the shop Group of Sultan & Associates at Asif Nagar, Hyderabad and noticed that accused is booking e-tickets and detained the accused for doing unauthorized e-ticketing business. Then the complainant secured the presence of two mediators LW2 and 3 namely Sri. Pradeep Kumar and Sri. Mohd. Fayaz and on enquiry the accused voluntarily shown 02 live e-tickets and also he voluntarily confessed that he booked those e- tickets for his customers on commission basis by using his 02 personal user IDs by charging Rs.50/- for e-ticket. Then, the complainant seized 02 live e-tickets, 07 used tickets and 02 personal user IDs from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama and recorded the statement of the accused effected the arrest, brought him to the post and registered a case in Cr.No.87/2022 u/s.143(1)(a) of Railways Act and released the accused on bail with sufficient sureties, since the said offence is the bailable one with instruction to appear before this court as and when summoned.
Page 1 of 6
C.C.No.153/2022 On 07.03.2022, complainant addressed a letter to CRI, Hyderabad for blocking of seized tickets. On 07.03.2022 LW1/Complainant submitted letter to GGM, IRCTC, Secunderabad for cancellation of unauthorized IDs and booked tickets. On 27.03.2022 complainant has examined and recorded the statement of mediators i.e., LW2 & 3. On 06.04.2022 LW1/complainant has examined and recorded statement of LW4 (passenger) by name Mohd Iqbal and after completion of the enquiries, filed the complaint.
3)The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 143(1)(a) of the Railways Act, 1989.
4)After appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/sec.207 Cr.PC.
5)Accused was examined under Section 246 (2) of Cr.PC. by explaining all the incriminating material available against him for which Accused denied the allegations. A prima-facie case is made out against the Accused basing on the evidence of the prosecution and a charge under Section 143 (1)(a) of Railways Act, 1989 was framed and explained to the Accused in Telugu language to which Accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.
6)On behalf of the complainant, LW1 was examined as PW1, independent mediators. The learned Public Prosecution got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P11 through the complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses, stating that the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to prove their case. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.
7)After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining all the incriminating evidence available against him in vernacular language for which Accused denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.
8)Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Railways and learned counsel for the accused.
9)Now the point for determination is “whether the complainant proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 143 (i) (a) of the Railways Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt?
10) POINT :-
In this case, prosecution examined PW1, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Hyderabad Post and through him Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked.
Page 2 of 6
C.C.No.153/2022
11)The allegation made against Accused is that the accused was carrying on business of procuring railway tickets unlawfully without any license issued by the railway authorities, which is an offence under Section 143(1)(a) of the Railways Act. Thus, if any person unauthorizedly carries on business of procuring or supplying Railway tickets is an offence under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989. To prove the offence of Accused, the complainant has to prove that the accused was apprehended while he was carrying on business of purchase or sale of Railway Tickets with a view to carry on such business either by himself or by any other person.
12)The above ingredients of Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 would show that if any person unauthorizedly purchases or sells tickets, he/she is liable for punishment. In this case, the evidence of PW1 would disclose that on receipt of reliable information about the touting activities at 'Group of Sultan & Associates at Asif Nagar, Hyderabad' and noticed that Accused is booking e-tickets and the accused was apprehended while in possession of railway reservation tickets to his customers on commission basis and charging an amount of ₹50/- per ticket and created his multiple personal user IDs and the same were seized by PW1 from the possession of the Accused under the cover of panchanama and on further enquiry Accused confessed that he is booking the tickets for his customers on commission basis. PW1 further deposed that he seized the said e-tickets and recorded the confessional statement of Accused under Ex.P5 in presence of LW2 and LW3. PW1 has deposed before this court about apprehension of Accused, seized the tickets from the possession of Accused who confessed the guilt of doing the same on commission basis in the presence of mediators, registered the crime and collected the documents including booking history of Accused personal user IDs as stated in the complaint.
13)In the cross examination of PW1, the complainant denied that a false case is filed against the Accused other than that the learned counsel for Accused did not give any suggestion in favor of the case of the Accused. That the Accused was never apprehended while he was in possession of Ex.P1 to P3 and that same were never seized before the mediators and that Accused never sold tickets illegally on commission basis and that a false case is filed against the accused and that Ex.P1 to P11 are planted for statistical purpose. It is to be noticed that PW1 is a public servant and he has no prior acquaintance with Accused. Thus, this court is of the opinion that merely because of PW1 is a official of Railways, his evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that they are interested particularly when there is no animosity between Accused and PW1. If such being the case, there is no reason for filing a false complaint against Accused.
Page 3 of 6
C.C.No.153/2022 Hence, this court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW1 is quite convincing and reliable in nature.
14)The Learned Counsel for the Accused would contend that the complainant/PW1 did not choose to examine the remaining Panch witnesses and as such merely relying on the evidence of PW1 by coming to a conclusion that the complainant proved guilt of Accused is unwarranted. This court is unable to agree with the above submission in view of the fact that there is no animosity between PW1 and the Accused at any point of time. Apart from that what all the evidence of PW1 would suggest that PW1 along with his staff while conducting confidential watch against Accused was apprehended at his shop and the Accused confessed that he is booking railway reservation tickets without being authorized to do so. It shows that the accused is apprehended by PW1 and his staff while discharging their duties by conducting surprise checks. Hence, it shows that the apprehension of Accused is accidental and spontaneous. Hence, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Accused that non examination of independent and panch witnesses is fatal to the case of the complainant does not hold well. Moreover, the confessional statement i.e., Ex.P5 recorded by the PW1 (Sub-Inspector RPF, Hyderabad post) are admissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the above discussions, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution could successfully prove its case.
15)The Learned Counsel for the Accused would further contend that the Confessional statements of the Accused have no evidentiary value as the same was obtained by force. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that under Railways Act, the Railway Protection Force personnel have authority to record the statement of the Accused U/sec.180(B) of the Railways Act and the same can be relied upon to connect the guilt of the accused. This court relied on the following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bala Kishan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1981 AIR 379). In the said judgement, it was held that the statement recorded by the officer of Railway Protection Force is admissible in evidence. Hence, in view of the above said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court is of the opinion that the Complainant by examining himself as PW1 and also marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 could successfully prove the guilty of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16)In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 143 (1)(a) of Railway Act and he is convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.PC.
Page 4 of 6
C.C.No.153/2022
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 17th Day of August, 2022
Sd/-
II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD
17)When the Accused was question with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed, he pleaded that he is a poor person and his family depend on him and he further pleaded that he is the sole bread winner of his family and he further pleaded that this is his first offence. he further promised that he would not repeat the offence in future.
18)As the offence committed by Accused is against the interest of public at large. As such this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
19)This court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for taking a lenient view against the accused while imposing sentence. As such, this court is of the opinion that imposing only fine to the accused would meet the ends of justice.
20)In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 143(1)
(a) of Railways Act and he is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.PC., and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only) in default suffer Simple imprisonment for two (02) months
for the offence under section 143(1)(a) of Railways Act. The bond and bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.PC.
21)Accused is informed about his right of appeal and the accused is also informed that if, he has no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal, he is at liberty to approach District Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad for free legal aid.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 17th Day of August, 2022.
Sd/-
II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:
PW1: Sri V.Ranga Rao None
Page 5 of 6
C.C.No.153/2022
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Ex.P1 are the printouts of 02 live tickets Nil Ex.P2 are the printouts of 07 used tickets. Ex.P3 are the printouts of 02 personal user. Ex.P4 is the Panchanama. Ex.P5 is the Accused statement. Ex.P6 is the Seizure list. Ex.P7 is the SBI statement of accused. Ex.P8 is the letter from IRCTC. Ex.P9 & 10 are the Statements of the mediators LW2 & 3. Ex.P11 is the statement of passenger i.e., LW4.
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE
MO's. Marked for:
NIL NIL
Sd/-
II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(FOR RAILWAYS) SECUNDERABAD
///True Copy///
Page 6 of 6