http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BASUDEV HAZRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MATIAR-RAHAMAN MANDAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/01/1971

BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1971 AIR  722            1971 SCR  (3) 478  1971 SCC  (1) 433

ACT: Bengal  Ferries  Act, 1886, s. 24--Scope of If  lessee  in respect of tolls can be penalised even where he levies  toll when  person  does not use ferry but  river-bed-Or  when  he levies charge in excess of prescribed rate.

HEADNOTE:  The  appellant  was a leaseholder in respect of tolls  of  a  public  ferry  crossing the river Damodar.   The  respondent  filed  a complaint against him alleging that  the  appellant  used   to  realise  illegally  20  np  per  cart  from   the  cultivators who used to drive their carts across the dry bed  of  the river.  After hearing of the respondent’s  complaint  on  November  29,  1964 the appellant  realised  double  the  amount  of  toll from the respondent.   The  appellant  was,  thereafter  convicted for offences under sections 23 and  24  of   the  Bengal  Ferries  Act,  1885.   In  revision,   the  Additional  Sessions  Judge  recommended  acquittal  of  the  appellant  in  respect  of his  conviction  under  both  the  provisions.  As to the conviction under s. 24, according  to  the Additional Sessions Judge, the collection of money  from  the  people  using  the river bed and not  the  ferry  might  amount to extortion under the Indian Penal Code but it would  not  attract  the provisions of s. 24.   Although  the  High  Court  accepted  the  recommendation  with  respect  to  the  acquittal under s. 23, it rejected the reference in  respect  of the conviction under s. 24.  In  the  appeal  to  this Court by  special  leave,  it  was  contended that the realisation of 40 np per cart from  those  who did not use the ferry could not as a matter of law  fall  within the mischief of s, 24.  HELD: dismissing the appeal.  Section  24  of  the Bengal Ferries Act does  not  speak  of  taking  toll in excess of the lawful limit only  from  those  persons  who  use  the  ferry.  This  Act  was  enacted  for  regulating  ferries but that does not mean that  an  illegal  demand under the pretext of claim by way of toll under  this  Act,  when it is not legally claimable, was not intended  by  the legislature to be prohibited and made punishable by  the  language of s. 24.  Demanding or receiving more than  lawful  dues  and  unduly  delaying persons,  animals,  vehicles  or  things  in  crossing the river are both rendered  penal  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

punishable.   Whether  the person from whom  the  amount  is  demanded or received is under no obligation to pay  anything  by  way of toll while crossing the river bed or is bound  by  law  only  to  pay  20 ps per cart as  toll  would  thus  be  immaterial  when  payment  is demanded or  received  on  the  pretext  that  it is due as toll when it is legally  not  so  due. [181 C-F]  To  exclude cases like the present from the operation of  s.  24 would unduly restrict its effectiveness and would  indeed  facilitate  illegal  recoveries prohibited by it.   To  that  extent  it  would defeat the object and purpose  which  this  section is intended to achieve. [182 A]

JUDGMENT:  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 171  of  1968.  479  Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated  September  13, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court  in  Criminal  Reference No. 36 of 1967.  D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.  The respondent did not appear.  The Judgment of the Court was-delivered by  Dua,  J. The appellant, Basudev Hazra, was a leaseholder  in  respect  of tolls of the public ferry at Sadar Ghat  on  the  outskirts  of Burdwan town for crossing the  river  Damodar.  This lease was for a period of three years (August 14,  1963  to  August  13, 1966) : Ex. 2. On November 30,  1964  Matiar  Rahman Mandal filed a complaint against the appellant in the  court  of  the  Sadar  Sub-Divisional  Officer   (Judicial),  Burdwan   alleging  that  the  appellant  used  to   realise  illegally  20 nP. per cart from the cultivators who used  to  drive  their  carts across the dry bed of  the  river.   The  matter  was reported to the S.D.O. who directed an  enquiry.  This  infuriated  the appellant.  On November 29,  1964  the  appellant realised double the amount of toll and on  protest  and  refusal  by  the complainant  he  was  threatened  with  violence by the appellant.  The  Magistrate trying the appellant for offences under  ss.  23  and 24 of the Bengal Ferries Act, I of  1885  convincted  him of both the offences.  The appellant was sentenced to  a  fine  of Rs. 10/- under s. 23 and to fine of Rs. 20/-  under  s. 24 : in default of payment of fine in the former case  he  was  to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days and in  the  latter for 20 days.  On  the appellant challenging his conviction on revision  in  the  Court  of the Sessions Judge, the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,   Burdwan  made  a  reference  to  the   High   Court  recommending the appellant’s acquittal.  It was observed  by  the   Additional  Sessions  Judge  in  his  reference   that  according to the appellant’s defence the complainant’s party  were   in  fact  using  the  landing  stage  and  the   path  constructed  and repaired by him and, therefore,  they  were  liable  to pay the usual toll tax.  After reproducing s.  24  he added :  ". . the complainant’s case as it appears from the  petition  of  complaint  and  also  from the  evidence  of  the  three  witnesses  examined on the point, is that they do  not  take  advantage  of any of the facilities provided by  the  lessee  and that the lessee demanded toll from them even though they  were  using their own path.  The defence as I  have  already  stated, was that the pathway and the landing stage belonged  to  the  lessee  and that, therefore,  he  was  entitled  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

collect  toll.   Forgetting the defence for the  moment,  it  seems to me that no conviction  480  u/s 24 can be sustained on the case of the complainant as it  is."  According  to  him the collection of money from  the  people  using  their  own pathway might amount to extortion  but  it  would  not  attract  s.  24.   We  need  not  refer  to  the  recommendation  with respect to the  appellant’s  conviction  under s. 23 as this was accepted by the High Court and there  is no appeal against acquittal under that section.  The  High Court accepted the recommendation with respect  to  the  conviction under s. 23 and acquitted the  appellant  of  that offence.  In regard to the; conviction under s. 24  the  High Court observed that the trial Magistrate had found  (i)  that the appellant had been realising toll charges in excess  of the scheduled rate of 20 ps. per cart and also  realising  such charges from persons who did not use the ferry and (ii)  that  though  the complainant had not availed of  the  ferry  and:  had taken the cart over the sandy bed of the river  40  ps. per cart were realised from him.  These findings of fact  were held not open to re-examination on revision.  The  High  Court  added  that  realisation of 40 ps.  fell  within  the  mischief of s. 24 which forbids every lessee from  realising  more than lawful toll even in cases in which he is  entitled  to  demand ferry charges.  Repelling the argument  that  the  present  was a case of extortion and it did not fall  within  the purview of s. 24 the High Court, after referring to  the  complainant’s  case, observed that it was a case of  illegal  realisation  of toll in excess, when the appellant  was  not  entitled  to realise it at all and not a case  of  extortion  under the Indian Penal Code.  The amount had been  illegally  demanded  as a toll and that also’ in excess of  permissible  rate.  The reference with respect to s. 24 was, as  observed  earlier, rejected.  The appellant has secured special leave to appeal under Art.  136 of the Constitution and his counsel Mr. D. N.  Mukherjee  has strenously contended that the realisation of 40 ps.  per  cart from those who do not use the ferry can not as a matter  of  law  fall within the mischief of s. 24  of  the,  Bengal  Ferries  Act.   His  contention in essence  is  that  unless  someone  actually uses a ferry no charges realised from  him  for permitting him to cross the river, even if the demand is  made  by way of toll, can attract the provisions of  s.  24.  The  contention though prima facie somewhat attractive  does  not stand scrutiny.  Section 24 reads as under :  "Penalty  for  taking unauthorised tolls,  and  for  causing  delay :  Every  such  lessee or other person as aforesaid  asking  or  taking more than the lawful toll, or without due cause  481  delaying  any person, annual, vehicle or other thing,  shall  be  punished  with  fine which may  extend  to  one  hundred  rupees."  It  is  obvious that this section does not speak  of  taking  toll  in excess of the lawful limit only from those  persons  who  use  the ferry.  This Act was  enacted  for  regulating  ferries but that does not mean that an illegal demand, under  the  pretext of claim by way of toll under this Act when  it  is not legally claimable was not intended by the legislature  to  be prohibited and made punishable by the language of  s.  24, Shri Mukherjee drew our attention to s. 5 of the Act  in  which  "ferry"  is  defined to include a  bridge  of  boats,  pontoons  or  rafts,  a swing-bridge,  a  flying  bridge,  a  temporary  bridge  and a landing stage.  According  to  him,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

this  definition  suggests that it is only when a  ferry  is  used  and  excessive, charges realised that s. 24  would  be  attracted.   The  submission is difficult to  accept.   This  definition  which is not exhaustive does not seem to  us  to  control   or  otherwise  to  throw  helpful  light  in   the  interpretation  of s. 24.  This section seems to  have  been  designed in effect to protect the persons crossing the river  against  harassment  and abuse of  the  privileged  position  which  the lessee or other person authorised to collect  the  tolls  of a public ferry occupies under the statute  in  the  matter of control over the passage or pathway for  crossing,  fording  or  ferrying across the river.   Demanding  or  re-  ceiving  more than lawful dues and unduly delaying  persons,  animals, vehicles or things. in crossing the river are  both  rendered penal and punishable.  Whether the person from whom  the amount is demanded or received is under no obligation to  pay anything by way of toll while crossing the river bed  or  is  bound by law only to pay 20 ps. per cart as  toll  would  thus  be immaterial when payment is demanded or received  on  the pretext that it is due as toll when it is legally not so  due.  In either case s. 24 would seem to be attracted : this  construction  would serve to suppress the mischief at  which  this  section appears to be aimed.  The question whether  or  not  the  appellant’s  case falls  within  the  mischief  of  extortion  as  defined under the Indian Penal  Code  is  not  strictly  relevant to the point arising in  the  controversy  because  if the appellant’s case is covered by s. 24 of  the  Act  then  he  is liable to  be  punished  thereunder.   His  liability  to  be  prosecuted under the  Indian  Penal  Code  cannot  by itself in law exclude the applicability of s.  24  to  his  case.  The Additional Sessions Judge  was,  in  our  opinion, not quite right in observing that the defence  that  the  accused was entitled to claim the toll may be  ignored,  because  defence  of an accused person can  legitimately  be  taken  into consideration while assessing the value  of  the  evidence and judging the guilt or innocence of the  accused.  The  appellant’s defence in this case would clearly tend  to  support the complainant’s case that the amount received  was  demanded as toll which was an unlawful  482  ,demand.   To  exclude  cases  like  the  present  from  the  operation  of s. 24 would unduly restrict its  effectiveness  and would indeed facilitate illegal recoveries prohibited by  it.   To that extent it would defeat the object and  purpose  which  this  section  is  intended  to  achieve.   When  the  appellant’s  counsel took us through the evidence  we  found  that   the  appellant  had  also  delayed  the   prosecution  witnesses  without  due  cause  in  crossing  the  river  in  violation  of s. 24. It is, however, unnecessary  to  pursue  this aspect.  Finally it may be pointed out that Art. 136 of  the  Constitution  does not confer a right of  appeal  on  a  party.  It only confers a discretionary power on this  Court  to  be  exercised sparingly to interfere in  suitable  cases  where  grave  miscarriage  of  justice  has  resulted   from  illegality  or  from misapprehension or mistake  in  reading  evidence or from ignoring, excluding or illegally admitting  material  evidence.  The present case suffers from  no  such  infirmity.  The  appeal  accordingly fails and is  dismissed.  R.K.P.S.              Appeal dismissed.  483