D. STEPHENS versus NOSIBOLLA

D. STEPHENS versus NOSIBOLLA

On facts, neither the Calcutta Maritime Board nor its officers, including the accused, engaged or supplied seamen within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1923; the collection of Re. 1 was a contribution towards office expenses and not remuneration for providing employment. Thus, the accused was not guilty of offences under sections 25 or 26. Furthermore, the High Court's order for a retrial exceeded the proper scope of revisional jurisdiction as there was no manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice in the acquittal.

Parties
Appellant: D. Stephens; Respondent: Nosibolla
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 March 1951
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Retrial by High Court; Special Leave Granted by His Majesty's Order in Council
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; acquittal restored.
Legal Topics
Merchant Shipping, Revisional Jurisdiction, Engagement of Seamen, Remuneration and Licensing Under Merchant Shipping Act
Criminal Law Maritime Law Merchant Shipping Revisional Jurisdiction Engagement of Seamen Remuneration and Licensing Under Merchant Shipping Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. Stephens

Appellant

Nosibolla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Retrial by High Court; Special Leave Granted by His Majesty's Order in Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the collection of Re. 1 from a seaman for the issuance of a muster card constitutes 'engaging or supplying' seamen under section 25 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1923.
  2. 2 Whether the collection of Re. 1 amounts to 'demanding or receiving remuneration for providing employment' under section 26 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1923.
  3. 3 Scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in interfering with an order of acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi

On facts, neither the Calcutta Maritime Board nor its officers, including the accused, engaged or supplied seamen within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1923; the collection of Re. 1 was a contribution towards office expenses and not remuneration for providing employment. Thus, the accused was not guilty of offences under sections 25 or 26. Furthermore, the High Court's order for a retrial exceeded the proper scope of revisional jurisdiction as there was no manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice in the acquittal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; acquittal restored.

Orders

  • The order of the High Court is set aside.
  • The order of acquittal by the Chief Presidency Magistrate is restored.