Jaladharr Bhattacharjya Vs Subal Chandra Mahisya Das

Calcutta High Court 20 May 1937 Criminal Rev. No. 180 of 1937

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Rev. No. 180 of 1937

Judgement Text

Translate:

Jack, J.@mdashThis Rule was issued, calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet and also upon the complainant Opposite Party to show

cause why the conviction of the Petitioner and the sentence passed on him should not be set aside. The conviction was under secs. 25 and 26 of

the Indian Ferries Act. He was fined RS 25 under each section. The case against the Petitioner is that he transported a wagon load of cement by

boat from the ghat of the Public Ferry near the Railway goods shed to the town bank of the river Surma, using hired coolies. Under sec. 25 of the

Indian Ferries Act every person crossing by any public ferry, or using the approach to, or landing place thereof, who refuses to pay the proper toll

shall be punishable. Sec. 26 runs thus:-

Whoever establishes, maintains or works a ferry in contravention of the provisions of sec. 13 shall be punished with fine which may extend to five

hundred rupees, and with a further fine which mae extend to one hundred for every day during which the ferry is maintained or worked in

contravention of those provisions.

Under the proviso to see. 13 of the Act this section has no reference to the use of private boats. The evidence shows that the boat used in this case

was a private boat belonging to the firm of which the Petitioner is a partner, and it was used in transporting cement belonging to the firm across the

river. The Petitioner is therefore not guilty of an offence under sec. 26 of the Act. He is also not guilty of an offence under sec. 25 of the Act, as the

ghat he used is the ghat provided by the Railway authorities from which goods arriving at the station can be taken there from in boats by any

member of the public and in using it to take his own goods in his own boat from the ghat, the accused was not using the ferry ghat so as to render

himself liable to the payment of toll and in refusing to pay toll he was not guilty of any offence under sec. 25 of the Act.

2. The convictions and sentences are therefore set aside and the accused is acquitted. The Rule is made absolute.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Stray Dogs Case:
Oct
27
2025

Story

Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Stray Dogs Case:
Read More
Supreme Court Stays Orders Against UBS Switzerland AG
Oct
27
2025

Story

Supreme Court Stays Orders Against UBS Switzerland AG
Read More