LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus MUKESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH \'. MUKESH AND ORS. OCTOBER 19, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Railways Act, 1989-Section 143-Unauthorized carrying on of business of procuring railway tickets-Allegation of abetment against reservation clerks-Conviction under-Acquittal by High Court-legality C of-Held: Reservation clerks did not violate any Rules while issuing ticket, as such no illegal omission to constitute abetment-Also no independent evidence adduced by prosecution to show that the clerks intentionally aided the accused-Common questions were framed and asked to all the accused persons which did not subserve the requirements of Section 313 Cr.P.C- D Thus, order of High Court does not call for interference-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313-Penal Code, 1860, Section 107-Evidence Act, 1872, Section 30. It is alleged that the respondents-reservation clerks had abetted Sin procuring reservation tickets illegally.Sand respondents were charged under E section 143(1) and section 143(2) of Railways Act, 1989 respectively. S absconded; however, the trial was concluded against respondents and they were held guilty. Respondents filed an appeal which was dismissed. However, revision application was allowed. Hence the present appeal. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A person in view of Section 143 (1) of the Railways Act, 1989 can be said to have committed an offence if he has been carrying on a business. The expression "business" implies continuity. The term 'abetment' has not been defined in the Railways Act. Section 107 of Penal Code defines abetment. A person, abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or G at the time of, the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate, the commission thereof would attract the third clause of section 107 IPC. Doing something for the offender is not abetment. Doing something with knowled1:e so as to facilitate him to commit the crime or otherwise would constitute abetment. No illegal omission on the part of respondents has been established. Admittedly in issuing the tickets, respondents have not violated H 492 ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH v. MUKESH [S.B. SINHA, J. ]· 493 any rules. Ex facie, they have also not violated any direction contained in any A circular issued by an appropriate authority in that behalf. 1497-C-D; 497-F-H; 498-AI 1.3. The entire prosecution is based on the purported confession of S. A statement of an accused would be admissible against a co-accused only in terms of section 30 of the Evidence Act. Such a statement of co-accused was B required to be corroborated by adduction of independent evidence. Prosecution has not adduced any independent evidence to show that respondents had intentionally aided Sand thereby abetted him in commission ofoffence under section 143(1) of the Act.1498-A-CI 1.4. The circumstances appearing against S and respondents were concededly different. However, one questionnaire common to all was prepared. c Not only similar questions had been put, similar answers had been recorded. Strangely enough, even questions required to be put to each of the accused persons separately have been made part of the same questionnaire. Such common questions framed and asked to all the accused persons did not D subserve the requirements of section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, High Court's observation that all the circumstances appearing against respondents had not been put in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot said to be unsustainable. 1498-D-FI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1087 of E 2006. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 7.2.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, in Criminal Revision No. 296 of2002. Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant. P.N. Mishra, Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Vinita G. Upadhyay, Awadhesh Kr. Singh and R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. F G Respondents were working as reservation clerks. They were posted at Indore Railway Station. The Assistant Sub Inspector of General Railway Police, Indore, on an information received by him that one person had illegally H 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A been purchasing tickets from reservation counters, came to the reservation office and in the process apprehended a person named Sure
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.