D STEPHENS Vs. NOSIBOLLA
LAWS(SC)-1951-3-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on March 02,1951

D.STEPHENS Appellant
VERSUS
NOSIBOLLA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SHRI SRIKANTA SARMA VS. SHRI ABBAKAS ALI AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-1985-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA CHARAN NUNIA VS. GURU CHARAN NUNIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1986-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
GOBORDHAN DATTA VS. SUBHAS CHANDRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1989-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUAR NANDI VS. DHIREN NANDI [LAWS(CAL)-2007-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
SABITRI BARMAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
VARSHABEN DASHRATHLAL TRIVEDI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-542] [REFERRED TO]
BISHAMBHAR DAYAL VS. TALIBALI [LAWS(ALL)-1965-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
NAGSI KHEMU HARIJAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-319] [REFERRED TO]
ALTAF VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-362] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA NATH MITRA VS. MUKANDA LAL SEN [LAWS(SC)-1955-3-15] [RELIED ON]
SHIV NARAIN SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
BULI DEI VS. KRUSHNA MOHAN PAHADSINGH [LAWS(ORI)-1995-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR MISTRY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1989-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
K CHINNASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1962-7-4] [RELIED ON]
KRISHNANKUTTY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2004-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. JOGA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-256] [REFERRED]
RAM BRIKSH SINGH VS. AMBIKA YADAV [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-131] [REFERRED]
ASHOK @ HASMUKH PUNAMCHAND CHHOVALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
RAVULA ANANTAIAH VS. NIMMAGADDA KISTAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1971-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
P SELVARAJ VS. JAYARANI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-316] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM MALIK VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2005-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
CATHOLIC UNION BANK LTD VS. ANTONY [LAWS(KER)-1960-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
NARAN VELJI VS. RANJITSINGH JAMNADAS KAPADIA [LAWS(BOM)-1954-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
LEOFRED LOBO VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-1966-10-14] [REFERRED]
PADUM SONI VS. NAKCHHED PRASAD [LAWS(CHH)-2009-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARLAL VS. HIRAM GABEL ALIAS HEMLAL [LAWS(CHH)-2009-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
MILAU VS. JAGDISH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI VS. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM - SIT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDI VS. DHARAMRAJ [LAWS(MPH)-2003-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
BALENDRA BHUSHAN SINGH VS. SHEKHAR SINGH AND (2) ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMANI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPA SHANKER PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-150] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-336] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH RAJ VS. DIWAN CHAND [LAWS(J&K)-2021-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
Salem District Central Co op Bank VS. Secretary to Government Co operation Food and Consumer Protection Department [LAWS(MAD)-2004-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
EKADASI MALLIK VS. BABAJI MALLIK AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-1994-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
SARJU SINGH VS. MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1964-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
KHETRABASI SAMUAL F VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1969-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
K RAMACHANDRAN VS. V N RAJAN [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-121] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH STEPHEN VS. SANTHANASAMY [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
SHISHUPAL SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-281] [REFERRED TO]
SATYEADRA KUMAR ROY VS. KRIPAMAY MISHRA [LAWS(GAU)-1986-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAZIBUR RAHMAN VS. ABUL HUSSAIN AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2005-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN DAS VS. SHANTANU KUNDU [LAWS(CAL)-2004-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
AFJAL HOSSAIN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDA TANTUBAI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
LALJEE GODHOO AND COMPANY VS. SARUDDIN MOHD ALI [LAWS(APH)-1987-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
NANDABAI W/O POPATRAO WARAT VS. MARUTI GOPALA MEHETRE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV RAJ VS. CHANDER PRAKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM VS. G N SHASHIDHAR AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-279] [REFERRED]
CHANDRA VS. RAMCHANDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-1997-3-102] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. MDJALAL AND [LAWS(KAR)-1958-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASHRI SUBHASH KAMBLE VS. SUBHASH BABANRAO KAMBLE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
AHAMMED PILLAY VS. DANIEL [LAWS(KER)-1987-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
KUSTA BALSU KANDNEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1985-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN DAS VS. KARUNANIDHI NIRALA [LAWS(CHH)-2009-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
NATHOO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-255] [REFERRED TO]
PARMANAND VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-163] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-164] [REFERRED TO]
BATUK NATH PATHAK VS. TRILOKI NARAYAN PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-166] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P VS. DHARAMPAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-168] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PHOOL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-422] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAHEED VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-132] [REFERRED TO]
SAFINA KOUSER VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2021-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-807] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SAINI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
REEMA AGGARWAL VS. ANUPAM [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR OHAKNAVARTY VS. STATEOF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1953-10-5] [REFERRED]
VINEET BAFNA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-8-178] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: RAJA GOUNDAN AND ANR. VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1966-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
RADHIKA SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-4-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHILOK BHARDWAJ VS. RUNIKA BHARWAJ [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARESAN VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-253] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KOERI VS. SINGHASHAN KOERI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
BIJOY KUMAR BASU VS. KALIPADA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1954-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
DINABANDU TALUKDAR VS. SANTOSH KUMAR HIMATSHINGKA [LAWS(GAU)-1986-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
A BIHARI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR CHANAGI VS. SANJAY ALIAS JADIO GAGAJI ALIAS PRAHLADJI THAKORE [LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGAM VS. KARUPPANNAN [LAWS(MAD)-1998-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. JONNALAGADDA NARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1993-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAYAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
VELAYUDHAN VS. IYPUTTY [LAWS(KER)-1962-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. KUNHAMBU NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1984-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-200] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAHID VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-167] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOLDALI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
ISTIYAQ AHAMAD VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-129] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR LAL SHARMA VS. LACHHAMAN [LAWS(ALL)-1984-11-35] [REFERRE TO]
V G PAWAR ASST MANAGER PHAITAN VS. SHANTILAL MULOKCHAND DOSHI [LAWS(BOM)-1976-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLA BAI OJHA VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-380] [REFERRED]
BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2008-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD KHAN VS. GOURISHANKAR MISRA [LAWS(ORI)-1953-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHUWAL PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1996-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SAO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA NATH DUTTA VS. RAM NARAIN [LAWS(SC)-1974-11-29] [RELIED ON]
JASWANT RAI VS. PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1967-10-45] [REFERRED]
JOHAR VS. MANGAL PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2008-1-58] [REFERRED]
MAHALAKSHMI VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DAS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-156] [REFERRED TO]
SAYED AHMED LASKAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM VS. STATE [LAWS(GAU)-2007-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
PALLAB DAS VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
K JAGADISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-278] [REFERRED]
RAM KHILARI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-186] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUVEER SINGH & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-343] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-244] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR PAUL VS. AMAR CHAND DAS [LAWS(GAU)-1961-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
UJJAWAL KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
MANAS SAMANTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT RANJAN CHAKRABORTY VS. TAPAS KUMAR NANDI [LAWS(CAL)-2011-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA DEVI VS. VINOD KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2005-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
MARY VS. DURAI ALIAS DURAIRAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-119] [REFERRED TO]
HAKAM SINGH VS. BALWINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-140] [REFERRED TO]
GURMAIL SINGH VS. BOGA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
MURTI DEVI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. JOGA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2008-2-365] [REFERRED TO]
RUPA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ALAKH NARAIN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1952-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
AKALU AHIR VS. RAMDEO RAM [LAWS(SC)-1973-5-25] [RELIED UPON]
BANSI LAL VS. LAXMAN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1986-7-10] [CITED]
PRABHUDAS CHHAGANLAL VS. BABUBHAI VIRABHAI MISERIA [LAWS(GJH)-1976-9-2] [REFERRED]
E SIVANANTH VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU UNIFORM SERVICES [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-265] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR DASS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
GUDARI RAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PAL VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-345] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMEED WARSI VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-361] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ RANI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-368] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-335] [REFERRED TO]
BINDU KUMARI VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANT SINGH VS. SARDAR MANMOHAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-162] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRAV SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
C V KELU VS. KUNHAMBU [LAWS(KER)-1960-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
KASHIRAM VS. BHAGWANDAS LALLU KURMI [LAWS(MPH)-1958-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDGI RAM VS. RAM PHAL [LAWS(DLH)-1973-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-2-476] [REFERRED TO]
RAMSHANKAR MISHRA VS. AVDHESH CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-402] [REFERRED]
HARBHAGWANT SINGH ALIAS NOOPI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2009-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM VS. SATBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
SADHU RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
KAPTAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-411] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTHO DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-284] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
KALANDI CHARAN PANI VS. GANESH DALAL [LAWS(ORI)-1991-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
SOMAN MUKHIA VS. AJODHYA MUKHIA [LAWS(PAT)-1957-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
VELLAIAMMAL VS. THIRUMAL ASARI [LAWS(MAD)-1986-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR DAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1977-10-4] [RELIED ON]
MOOKAIAH VS. KANNIKA AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-551] [REFERRED]
SHLOK BHARDWAJ VS. RUNIKA BHARDWAJ [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
RUKHAMANI BAI VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2005-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
BRINDABAN SUTRADHAR VS. PRAFULLA SUTRADHAR [LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN @ GHELABHAI SHAMJIBHAI VACHHANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
GORAKH NIMBA SHIRSAT VS. GULAB MURLIDHAR DABHOLE [LAWS(BOM)-1999-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
NAKKEERAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2021-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
SWAI RAM VS. GUDDU ALIAS DAWOOD AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-191] [REFERRED]
RAM JAS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. CHANDER PARKASH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
CHATURBHUJ VERSI VS. VAGHER VASTA BHIKHA [LAWS(GJH)-2000-2-88] [REFERRED]
VIKKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-181] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SOBUR ALI KHAN AND ORS. VS. MD. IBRAHIM SHEIKH AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-1984-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
KARALI BAURI VS. SUBHASH DAS MUSIB [LAWS(CAL)-1983-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHI SITA RAM VS. LACHHMI CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-1953-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL SADANAND SAWANT AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-118] [REFERRED TO]
A SOMU THEVAR VS. SIVAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-1996-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI BALA SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-70] [REFERRED]
SACHIN SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-236] [REFERRED]
STATE VS. N K MALHOTRA & OTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-414] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. N K MALHOTRA & OTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-414] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. HUKUM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHADUR SINGH ALIAS LALOO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURAT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-221] [REFERRED TO]
BALARAM VS. CHHEDIRAM PATEL [LAWS(CHH)-2009-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM GOSWAMI VS. MUKHTIAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1969-9-18] [REFERRED]
SHOBHA VS. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE C I OF POLICE KUTHUPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT [LAWS(KER)-2012-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU REVISION PARTNERS VS. T V HAMEED [LAWS(KER)-1985-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
Sanjay Tiwari VS. Hari Krishna Kaul [LAWS(MPH)-1992-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
ULAGAMUTHUAMMAL VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1984-3-17] [REFERRED TO 64 L.W. 541 [1951] S.C.R. 284 A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 196]
BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH ALIAS B P SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR NOW JARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2002-8-38] [REFERRED]
M. NATARAJAN VS. THIRU. K.R. PALANICHAMY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-100] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal comes up before us on special leave granted by His Majesty's Order in Council and it is directed against orders made by Sen J. of the H. C. of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, directing a retrial of the applt. D. Stephens, who had been acquitted by the Chief Presidency Mag. of contravening the provisions of S. 26, Merchant Shipping Act.
(2.)The facts that gave rise to this prosecution are correctly set out in the following two paras. which are quoted from the judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Mag. :
"The owners of the ships have an organisation known as the Calcutta Liners' Conference. The seamen have an organisation known 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 for direct engagement of seamen by the owners. The Joint Supply Office does not supply the seamen. The Calcutta Maritime Board also does not supply nor engage seamen. The engagement is made by the Captains of the Ships. The Calcutta Maritime Board, at the relevant time, was formed of equal members representing the Calcutta Liners' Conference (the owners) and the Joint Supply Office (the seamen). At the present moment the Govt. of India have two representatives in the Calcutta Maritime Board. There are two Joint Chairmen and two joint Secretaries, one each from each group of the owners' and seamen's representatives. Accused Stephens is the Secretary of the Calcutta Liners' Conference and is a paid officer. His salary is paid by his employers, the Calcutta Liners' Conference, with contributions obtained from the owners of the ships whose assocn. the Conference is. The accused is one of the Joint Secretaries of the Calcutta Maritime Board in his capacity as the Secretary of the Calcutta Liners' Conference. The Joint Secretaries of the Calcutta Maritime Board hold honorary posts and receive no remuneration."

"The procedure for recruitment now is that the seaman present themselves before the Calcutta Maritime Board. They are given Muster Cards which permit them to appear at the musters where the Captains of the ships engage the seamen. The Board endeavours to lay down and procedure for the Captains of the ships while engaging seamen. There is an 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 Rs. 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."

(3.)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 contravened S. 26, Merchant Shipping Act, and that he was, therefore, guilty of an offence within the meaning of sub cl.(2) of that section. The Chief Presidency Mag. acquitted the accused of the charge but on revision the H. C. at Calcutta directed a retrial, holding that the accused clearly contravened the provisions of S. 25 of the Act, and that if the complainant was to be believed when he said that the accused received Re. 1 before registration, he was also guilty under S. 26 of the Act; and both parties were allowed to adduce additional evidence. This second trial again ended in an acquittal by the Chief Presidency Mag. who came to the conclusion that the accused did not supply or engage seamen, that he did not receive any payment of Re. 1 for issuing the muster Card to the complainant and that Re. 1 which is collected from the seamen by the ship owners after employment by way of deduction from wages is paid not as remuneration to the accused or any one else, but is really a contribution towards the expenses of the Joint Supply Office working under the Calcutta Maritime Board. There was again a revn. petn. taken to the H. C. against this order of acquittal and it was heard by the same learned Judge as before.He differed from the Chief Presidency Mag. on all the material points and sent the case back again for a fresh trial in a judgment which contains findings almost amounting to a direction to the Chief Presidency Mag. 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 S. 25 of the Act. The receipt of Re. 1 was a demand for remuneration within the meaning of S. 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.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.