RIVERS STEAM NAVIGATION CO LTD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applications by the Rivers Steam Navigation Company Ltd. and by Irshad Ali, who have been fined the sum of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 300 respectively under Section 58, Inland Steam Vessels Act of 1917. On 11 November 1935 the S.S. Cheeba belonging to the Company was plying on the river Gogra in charge of the other petitioner as master or sarang. There was a mela at a place called Bhagrasan on that date with the result that at Tikaulia or Maniar Ghat, a calling place of the steamer, a large number of persons crowded on board. The steamer crossed to Pattar Ghat and was on the way to Darauli, the next calling place, when it struck a submerged obstacle, probably the stump of a tree, and sank. Fortunately the upper deck remained above water, but some passengers were carried away in the stream and were drowned, while others managed to swim to shore. Both Courts have found that the vessel was carrying more than 700 passengers, whereas, according to the last issued certificate of survey, it was licensed to carry a maximum of 328. The Company and the Sarang have therefore been convicted under Section 58 of the Act, which prohibits the carrying of a larger number of passengers than that entered in the certificate as being in the judgment of the official surveyor the number which the vessel is fit to carry. This Court is being asked to set aside the convictions of the petitioners under this, section.

(2.) It was argued that the Company is not liable as it has not been shown to have been directly responsible for the over, loading, or, in other words, on the ground that the element of mens rea, which is required for conviction under a criminal charge, has not been established. Mr. Chatterjee, who appeared for the Company, referred to Williamson V/s. Norris 1899. 1 Q.B. 7 where it is stated as a general rule of English law that no crime can be committed unless there is a mens rea. The same authority allows that there are exceptional cases where a man is treated as guilty even though he had no guilty mind. We must therefore look to the wording of the Section itself, which gives no option to the Magistrate but to hold the owner and master liable, if the section is contravened. The question of mens res does not therefore arise; nor does it appear to be unjust that the Company should be made liable since it may be presumed that it has profited by reason of the passengers carried in excess.

(3.) It was next argued that the certificate of survey in this case was issued incomplete, and that it admits of the interpretation that not less than 656 passengers could have been carried. There are three schedules on the certificate showing the number of passengers allowed to be carried, namely Schedule A, B and C. Schedule A shows 218 passengers and Schedule B, which is said to apply to this case, shows 328. Schedule C is blank, but it is suggested that according to the usual calculation, it should show double the number given in Schedule B, namely 656. Schedule C applies to voyages of not more than six hours, and it is argued that in this case the passengers carried in excess were travelling for a shorter distance than six hours. For the purpose of the schedule, the voyage of the steamer has to be considered and not that of the passengers, and it was not suggested, and could not be suggested, that the voyage of the steamer, plying in regular service on the river Gogra, did not exceed six hours. In such cases Schedule B applies and the maximum number of passengers to be carried was 328, which number has been found to have been greatly exceeded.