AFEEFA KADIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.M.C. is filed, seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.967/2019 of Railway Protection Force (RPF) Post, Aluva. A significant question brought up in this case is regarding the applicability of the provisions of S.143 of the Railways Act in sale of e-tickets through online platforms.

(2.) On 24/9/2019, the Assistant Sub Inspector, RPF Crime Intelligence Branch, Thiruvananthapruam, obtained a search warrant and conducted search on 25/9/2019 at 'Fly Image Tours and Travels' Asamanoor.P.O., Odakali, Ernakulam. Petitioner, the owner of the establishment, was available at the shop. Search was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses between 12.30 and 14.00 hours. During the search, a laptop of the petitioner was inspected and 5 numbers of valid reservation e-tickets having a total value of Rs.5382.85 and 11 numbers of date of journey expired reservation e-tickets of a total value of Rs.13478.47 were recovered from it. Two numbers of copies of IRCTC personnel user profile ids, a laptop, a mobile phone and 3 numbers of visiting cards of the shop were recovered. As the petitioner had no authorisation from the Railway administration and IRCTC for selling tickets, seizure was effected and search list was properly prepared and attested by witnesses. The petitioner was interrogated and she allegedly admitted that e-tickets were booked and sold for monetary benefits. She was arrested and was brought to the RPF Post, Aluva at 17.00 hours. The arrested accused, seized articles and documents were handed over to the RPF Post. Petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and was released on bail.

(3.) On 21/7/2020 when the Crl.M.C. came up for admission, by order passed in Crl.M.A.No.1/2020, further proceedings were stayed for a period of two months. Interim order was extended from time to time and it remained in force till June, 2024. However, there was no proper notice to the 2nd respondent as evident from the proceedings. The learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent pointed out that notice was not served on the counsel representing the Railway and the 2nd respondent came to know about the pendency of the Crl.M.C. only when an intimation was received from the office of the Advocate General. Before receipt of the said intimation, investigation was completed and complaint was filed.