TMI Blog1951 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of contravening the provisions of section 26 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. The facts that gave rise to this prosecution are correctly set out in the following two paragraphs which are quoted from the judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate:- The owners of the ships have an organisation known as the Calcutta Liners' Conference. The seamen have an organisation know as the Joint Supply Office. Since 1940-41 the licensed broker system for engagement of seamen had been abolished. The Calcutta Maritime Board was established as a result of a collective agreement between the owners of the ships and seamen's representatives for recruiting seamen. It is a joint negotiating machinery between the owners and the seamen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excess of supply of seamen over the demand. This had brought in corruption. To fight out corruption, the Calcutta Maritime Board was conceived to find out a procedure for the owners of the ships for employing seamen by rotation. For meeting the office expenses of the Calcutta Maritime Board the owners, at the relevant time used to pay ₹ 2 per seaman engaged. After signing on, each seaman pays back the owners Re. 1 as his contribution towards office expenses of the Calcutta Maritime Board. None of the facts stated above was contested for the complainant. The complainant Nosibolla alleged that the accused as Joint Secretary of the Board collected an illegal charge of Rupee one from him for issue of a muster card and thus contravene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Magistrate to convict the accused. In the learned Judge's view the issue of a muster card to seamen amounted to the supply of seamen within the meaning of section 25 of the Act. The receipt of Re. 1 was a demand for remuneration within the meaning of section 26, even if it was ultimately spent for expenses of the running of the Joint Supply Office and that a demand for payment would by itself constitute the offence, whether the money was actually received or not. It is against this interference in revision that the present appeal was lodged before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the ground that the jurisdiction to direct a retrial was so exercised in the case as to constitute. an infringement of the essential princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;contravention of this section, he shall for each seaman in respect of whom an offence is committed be liable to a fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and, if a licensed person, shall forfeit his licence. 26. (1) A person shall not demand or receive directly or indirectly, from any seaman, or from any person seeking employment as a seaman, or from any person on his behalf, any remuneration whatever for providing him with employment other than the fees authorised by this Act. (2) If a person acts in contravention of this section, he shall for each such offence be liable to pay a fine of fifty rupees, and, if a licensed person, shall forfeit his licence. On the facts as admitted or proved in the evidence, it is difficult to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time Board through the Joint Supply Office but the seamen are engaged by the shipowners or the Captains. To a certain extent, the recruitment is regulated by the Maritime Board, but it is a misnomer to say that the seamen are supplied to the owners by the Board or by any of its officers. In his written statement found at page 28 of the printed book the accused has stated, and it is not controverted anywhere, that the system of selection of crew through the agency of Serangs was brought to an end owing to the opposition of the seamen themselves, who alleged that it resulted in widespread corruption as the Serangs recruited only those who paid them heavily. It is fantastic for the prosecution to suggest that Re. 1 levied out of the seaman& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as a seaman. The facts leave no room for any doubt that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. Mr. Justice Sen says I fully realise that, ordinarily this Court ought not to interfere with orders of acquittal. It should do so only on exceptional grounds. It is a matter of some regret that this realization by him of the very. limited nature of the revisional jurisdiction was not carried into effect but resulted in an order directing the retrial of a man for a third time for offences which could not be said to have been made out even prima facie. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
