Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
17. The purport and objective of Section 143 of the Act is to restrict entities which are not under the disciplinary control of or are not authorised by the railways to conduct the business of procurement and supply of railway tickets. Railway servants and authorised agents stand apart since, on its own terms, Section 143 has no application to them.
18. The whole scheme of e-ticketing was introduced for the convenience and betterment of the passenger’s experience of travelling on a train, due to which the procurement and supply of these e-tickets, rightfully so, is highly regulated. In the additional affidavit of the appellant in the lead appeal, Rules and Regulations for Reserved Bail e-Ticketing Service Providers (PSPs/RSPs) have been annexed which reflect the idea of protecting the consumer and strictly prohibit using personal/ fraudulent IDs to book tickets for commercial purposes. These rules, further, bar sharing of the credentials by these authorised agents. Also, the perils of hoarding of resources by a select few are widely known and has to be kept in mind while adjudicating the present lis.
19. IRCTC has limited the number of tickets which can be reserved on one personal user ID at 12 per month (24 per month with a user ID which is Aadhaar verified). Mathew, it is alleged, had created hundreds of fake user IDs to sell tickets without any authorisation from the railways. Although the internet and e-tickets were unknown in India when the Act was brought into force, this conduct of Mathew (who is neither a railway servant nor an authorised agent) nevertheless attracts criminality under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.
20. The Kerala High Court allowed the quashing petition filed by Mathew on the ground that the Act was enacted before the advent of internet and e-tickets and the lawmakers could not have envisioned sale of tickets, online. We find this line of reasoning of the High Court to be plainly erroneous.
21. 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 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian & Anr. 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. This principle was expounded by this Court in Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra12 in the following words: “…This Court in construing the words ‘sale of goods’ in Entry 48, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, accepted the aforesaid principle in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co., (Madras) Ltd. [(1959) SCR 379] and restated it at p. 416 thus: ‘The principle of these decisions is that when, after the enactment of a legislation, new facts and situations arise which could not have been in its contemplation, the statutory provisions could properly be applied to them if the words thereof are in a broad sense capable of containing them.’ The legal position may be summarized thus: The maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes, but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. There is a good reason for this change in the mode of interpretation. The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the Court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one, namely, what is the expressed intention of the Legislature. It is perhaps difficult to attribute to a legislative body functioning in a static society that its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take within its sweep the future developments comprehended by the phraseology used. It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstances obtaining at the time the law was made. But in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, for a modern Legislature making laws to [1962] 3 SCR 146 : AIR 1962 SC 159 510 govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and scientific and other fields of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them. We cannot, therefore, agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the maxim contemporanea expositio could be invoked in construing the word ‘telegraph line’ in the Act.” (emphasis supplied)
22. The aforenoted decision has been followed in a relatively recent decision of this Court in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India.13 This Court, further, noticed an English decision in Comdel Commodities Ltd. v. Siporex Trade S.A. (No. 2)14 distilling the principle as follows: ‘… When a change in social conditions produces a novel situation, which was not in contemplation at the time when a statute was first enacted, there can be no a priori assumption that the enactment does not apply to the new circumstances. If the language of the enactment is wide enough to extend to those circumstances, there is no reason why it should not apply.’
23. Bearing in mind the above principles, we may now proceed to consider a couple of decisions of this Court on the rule of literal interpretation.
24. In Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.,15 Hon’ble S.R. Das J. (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, held as follows: “6…The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statutes literally, that is, by giving to the words their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If, however, such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning, the Court may adopt [2019] 6 SCR 307 : (2019) 5 SCC 480 (1990) 2 All E R 552 (HL) [1955] 1 SCR 1369 : AIR 1955 SC 376 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian & Anr. the same. But if no such alternative construction is possible, the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation. In the present case, the literal construction leads to no apparent absurdity and therefore, there can be no compelling reason for departing from that golden rule of construction.”
25. A reference can also be made to the decision of not too distant an origin. In Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana,16 the rule of literal construction has been reiterated in the following words: “39. If the legislature had intended that the licensee is required to transfer the land and also to construct the buildings on it or to make payment for such construction, the legislature would have made specific provisions laying down such conditions explicitly and in clear words in which event the provisions would have been worded in altogether different words and terms. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a statute is determinative factor of legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute.” (emphasis supplied)
26. From the above decisions, it is quite clear 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.
27. Section 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 we read the section and give its contents the natural and ordinary meaning, keeping in mind the objective and purpose of the legislation, [2009] 1 SCR 553 : (2009) 3 SCC 553 512 as discussed above, it admits of no doubt that this provision criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of the mode of procurement and supply.
28. We are further of the considered opinion that 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 Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets. Section 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. The Kerala High Court seems to have missed this aspect.
29. There has been a major technological development in the last three decades by reason whereof a significant number of services provided by the Governments are available online. Electronic and internet services have not only become indispensable but offer significant advantages to the public. Having regard to the comprehensive phraseology employed in Section 143, the net of its coverage is wide enough to encompass regulation of the conduct of ticketing agents and to protect the public from unscrupulous elements trying to defraud them by sale of valueless tickets.
30. The Kerala High Court made the distinction between “procure” and “purchase”. It held that the tickets were “purchased” by genuine passengers. The tickets were not sold by Mathew, rather, the tickets were sold by IRCTC in the names of the passengers. Hence, it cannot be said that Mathew was procuring the tickets. This reasoning, in our view, is flawed and unsustainable. Travel agents, by and large, do not purchase tickets in their own name and then sell it to the passengers. Tickets are procured in the name of the passengers by these agents in lieu of a commission on the price thereof. Taking active steps, however faithfully, in order to acquire and provide tickets to third parties but without being a railway servant or an authorised agent would attract the expression ‘procure and supply’ as in Section 143.
31. We agree with the prosecution that Section 143, a penal provision, has been enacted to tackle a social crime. The Indian Railways is a keystone of our country’s infrastructure. It carries around 673 crore passengers annually and has a tremendous impact on the economy [2025] 1 S.C.R. Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian & Anr. of this country. Any effort to disrupt the integrity and stability of the ticketing system has to be stopped on its tracks.
32. The second issue before us is whether these criminal proceedings in the two appeals should be quashed. This Court has dealt with the issue of quashing numerous times. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,17 State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha,18 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,19 Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate,20 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander.21
33. The principles which can be extrapolated from these precedents are that quashing of a criminal proceeding can take place, inter alia, if the first information report does not reveal a crime or if the fact situation be such that continuance of the criminal proceedings would result in abuse of the process causing injustice to the accused. This power of quashing, however, is not unfettered or unlimited and as the old adage goes – “judicial discretion has to be exercised judiciously”.
34. In the lead appeal, the facts of the case prima facie reveal the commission of an offence under Section 143 of the Act. Mathew, without the authorisation of the railways, was carrying on a business of procurement and supply of railway tickets. The allegations against Mathew taken at face value fulfil the elements required under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act; hence, the threshold for quashing has not been met in this case.
35. In the connected appeals, Ramesh was an authorised agent of the railways carrying on the business of procurement and supply of railway tickets. Section 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 Ramesh in the connected appeal, though serious, Section 143 would not be attracted insofar as he is concerned. [1960] 3 SCR 311 : 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 [1982] 3 SCR 121 : (1982) 1 SCC 561 [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 735 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : (1998) 5 SCC 749 [2012] 7 SCR 988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 514
36. That apart, Section 143 does not criminalise creating multiple user IDs. Penal provisions have to be read strictly and narrowly as a general rule. Section 143, by being completely silent on creation of multiple user IDs, penalises the actions of only the unauthorised agents and not unauthorised actions of the authorised agents. Thus, even if the facts disclosed in the first information report are taken at face value, commission of an offence cannot be attributed to Ramesh. Any breach has to be remedied by civil action and not criminal action.
37. To sum up, Mathew not being an authorised agent has to face the proceedings against him while Ramesh, being an authorised agent, cannot be proceeded against under Section 143 of the Act for alleged breach of any of the terms and conditions of the contract. If, at all, he would be liable to face civil action.
38. In our view, for the foregoing reasons, the lead appeal deserves to be allowed and consequently, the criminal proceedings against Mathew need to be restored. It is ordered accordingly.
39. The proceedings against Mathew shall be taken to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law. Observations made by us hereinabove are for the purpose of a decision on the lead appeal and may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution’s case.
40. The connected appeals are allowed as well, but the criminal proceedings against Ramesh are hereby quashed. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan