Calcutta High Court Slams Illegal Sale of Train Berths by TTEs, Seeks Strict Action Across Railway Zones

The Calcutta High Court has come down heavily on the illegal practice of travelling ticket examiners (TTEs) selling vacant train berths, directing general managers across all railway zones to impose the strictest possible penalties on officials found engaging in such misconduct.

The observations came while the court was hearing a case related to the 2009 death of a passenger who was allegedly drugged and robbed after securing a berth by paying a TTE despite travelling with an unreserved ticket.

A division bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Biswaroop Choudhury remarked that some TTEs sell vacant berths "like vegetables in a market," adding that such illegal practices have become one of the root causes of crimes committed against passengers aboard trains.

The case dates back to February 2009, when two passengers boarded the Teesta Torsa Express from New Jalpaiguri to Sealdah using unreserved tickets. According to the court, they obtained sleeping berths after allegedly paying a TTE. During the journey, both passengers were drugged and robbed by criminals. One passenger survived after prolonged treatment, while the other died due to medical complications following the incident.

The High Court observed that the illegal allotment of berths by TTEs created an environment that enabled such crimes to occur. It directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the general managers of all railway zones so that strict disciplinary action can be taken against officials found violating railway rules.

The bench further noted that many similar incidents involving theft, drugging and passenger safety may go unreported and stressed the need for stronger enforcement to protect railway passengers.

The court also criticised the police investigation, pointing out several lapses during the inquiry. It observed that investigators failed to properly secure forensic evidence, including the victim's viscera examination, calling the shortcomings "inexcusable."

While reviewing the criminal case, the High Court partly allowed the appeals of the two convicted individuals. The bench held that the prosecution had successfully proved the offence relating to administering intoxicating substances but found insufficient evidence to sustain convictions for murder and certain other charges. Consequently, the court modified the convictions while directing that the accused, who had already spent several years in custody, be released on bond in accordance with legal procedures.

The judgment underscores growing judicial concern over passenger safety, illegal berth allotments and accountability within the Indian Railways, while urging stricter disciplinary action against railway officials who violate established procedures.

Key Highlights

• Calcutta High Court directed all railway zones to take strict action against TTEs selling vacant berths illegally.
• The observations came during the hearing of a 2009 passenger drugging and robbery case.
• The court remarked that some TTEs sell berths "like vegetables in a market."
• Judges linked illegal berth allotment to crimes committed against railway passengers.
• The High Court criticised lapses in the police investigation, including forensic shortcomings.
• Convictions of two accused were modified after the court found only certain charges proved.

FAQs

Q1. Why did the Calcutta High Court criticise TTEs?
The court said some TTEs illegally sell vacant train berths, creating opportunities for crimes against passengers.

Q2. Which case led to the court's observations?
The observations were made while hearing a 2009 case involving the drugging, robbery and death of a passenger travelling on the Teesta Torsa Express.

Q3. What directions did the High Court issue?
The court asked general managers of all railway zones to impose the maximum possible penalties on TTEs found illegally selling berths.

Q4. Did the court criticise the police investigation?
Yes. The High Court pointed out major investigative lapses, particularly regarding forensic evidence collection.

Q5. What happened to the convicted accused?
The High Court modified their convictions, holding that only the offence related to administering intoxicating substances had been proved while setting aside other major charges.