Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and Another vs Emperor

Madan, J.—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 u/s 58, Inland Steam Vessels Act of 1917. On 11th 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 u/s 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.

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. 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.

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.

The main argument for the petitioners was that Section 58 itself does not apply to the case. According to Section 3(1) of the Act an inland steam-vessel shall not proceed on any voyage, or be used for any service unless it has a certificate of survey in force and applicable to such voyage or service. u/s 55, the owner and the master of an inland steam-vessel proceeding on a voyage in contravention of Section 3 are liable to fine.

In this case the certificate had expired on 8th June, and thereafter a fresh survey was required by the Act to be made, and a fresh certificate to be issued. This certificate was not issued till 15th December, whereas the accident took place on 11th November. Section 3(2) of the Act provides that a steamer may ply without a certificate during such time as may reasonably be required for obtaining a new one. In the present case the petitioners were at first charged u/s 55 for using the vessel without a proper certificate. The prosecution under this section was withdrawn presumably because the authorities concerned were satisfied that the petitioners, were not responsible for the delay in issuing the certificate. It is now argued that Section 58 can no longer apply to the case. This section runs as follows:

If an inland steam vessel has on board or in any part thereof a number of passengers which is greater than the number set forth in the certificate of survey as the number of passengers which the vessel or the part thereof is, in the judgment of the surveyor, fit to carry, the owner and the master shall each be punishable with fine which may extend to ten rupees for every passenger over and above that number

It is argued that as no certificate was in force at the time of the accident, there can be no conviction for carrying passengers in excess of the certificated number. Now it is obviously part of the scheme of the Act that a steamer shall not be allowed to carry a larger number of passengers than that which it has been certified as able to carry within the limits of safety.

If as the Act now stands, the petitioners are not liable to conviction u/s 58, merely because their certificate was under renewal at that time, the Act ought forthwith (sic) to be amended. Section 58 however does not say that the certificate must be in force, but that the steamer must not carry more than the number which according to the judgment of the surveyor, as entered in the certificate, it is fit to carry.

In my opinion, for the purpose of this section, the certificate intended is the certificate last issued for the steamer, and it is immaterial that that certificate was under renewal at the time, and the petitioners have been rightly convicted. Lastly it was suggested that the sentences are excessive on the ground that the accident was not due to any fault of the sarang.

The regulations however had been framed under the Act as a safeguard against accidents such as happened in this case. Had the steamer not been overloaded, it is probable that most or all of the passengers would have been able to reach the upper deck, and the loss of life might have been avoided.

I do not consider that the sentences on either petitioner are excessive, and I dismiss the applications.