Abetment of unauthorised railway ticket business requires independent proof of intentional aid; co-accused statements alone are insufficient.

To establish abetment of unauthorised business of procuring and supplying railway tickets, the prosecution had to prove intentional facilitation by independent evidence; the co-accused's statement and surrounding circumstances were insufficient to show culpable participation, so the charge failed. The common and imperfectly tailored questions under Section 313 CrPC were criticised, but the defect did not justify reversal because the acquittal was otherwise supported and the evidence admitted two views. The SC therefore left the acquittal undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents abetted the offence of unauthorised carrying on of business of procuring and supplying railway tickets under the Railways Act on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the statement of the co-accused; (ii) Whether the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents abetted the offence of unauthorised carrying on of business of procuring and supplying railway tickets under the Railways Act on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the statement of the co-accused.

Analysis: The offence under the Railways Act requires proof of carrying on a business, which imports continuity. Abetment was to be tested on the basis of intentional aid within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution led no independent evidence showing that the respondents intentionally facilitated the alleged illegal business. The materials relied upon, including the alleged confession of the main accused, could not by themselves establish guilt against the respondents, and the surrounding circumstances did not exclude the possibility that the tickets were issued to different persons or on different counters without any culpable participation by them.

Conclusion: The charge of abetment was not proved against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the acquittal.

Analysis: The questions framed under Section 313 were common and not properly tailored to the individual accused, and the High Court's criticism on that aspect was not wholly unsustainable. However, the defect did not alter the overall conclusion, because the State failed to establish any illegality in the acquittal and the case did not justify interference in appeal against acquittal where two views were possible.

Conclusion: The defect in the Section 313 examination did not warrant reversal of the acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was left undisturbed and the appeal did not succeed, as the prosecution failed to prove intentional abetment and no ground for appellate interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: To sustain abetment, the prosecution must prove intentional facilitation of the principal offence by independent evidence; a co-accused's statement, without corroboration, is insufficient, and an acquittal will not be interfered with where the evidence admits of two views.

---