Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Ferry Toll Lessee Convicted Under Bengal Ferries Act for Unauthorised Toll Collection. Section 24 of Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 Applied to Demands Made on Pretext of Toll from Persons Not Using Ferry and in Excess of Lawful Rate.

Case Note & Summary

This appeal arose from a criminal prosecution under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. The appellant, Basudev Hazra, held a lease for the tolls of a public ferry at Sadar Ghat on the outskirts of Burdwan town for crossing the river Damodar, for a period from August 14, 1963 to August 13, 1966. The respondent, Matiar Rahman Mandal, filed a complaint on November 30, 1964 before the Sadar Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial), Burdwan, alleging that the appellant had been realising an illegal toll of 20 paise per cart from cultivators who drove their carts across the dry bed of the river. The matter was reported to the S.D.O., who directed an enquiry, which reportedly infuriated the appellant. On November 29, 1964, the appellant realised double the amount of toll, i.e., 40 paise per cart, from the respondent and, on protest, threatened him with violence. The Magistrate tried the appellant for offences under Sections 23 and 24 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, and convicted him of both offences, imposing a fine of Rs. 10 under Section 23 and Rs. 20 under Section 24, with simple imprisonment in default. The appellant challenged the conviction on revision. The Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan, made a reference to the Calcutta High Court recommending acquittal, observing that collection of money from persons using their own pathway might amount to extortion but would not attract Section 24. The High Court accepted the reference with respect to Section 23 and acquitted the appellant of that offence, but rejected the reference with respect to Section 24. The High Court held that the trial Magistrate had found that the appellant had been realising toll charges in excess of the scheduled rate of 20 paise per cart and also from persons who did not use the ferry, and that these findings of fact were not open to re-examination on revision. The High Court further held that realisation of 40 paise fell within the mischief of Section 24, which forbids every lessee from realising more than lawful toll even in cases where he is entitled to demand ferry charges. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The core legal issue was whether Section 24 applies when toll is demanded and received from persons who do not use the ferry and in excess of the lawful rate. The appellant argued that unless someone actually uses a ferry, no charges realised from him for permitting him to cross the river, even if demanded by way of toll, can attract Section 24. He also relied on Section 5 of the Act, which defines 'ferry' inclusively, to contend that the penal provision applies only when a ferry is used and excessive charges realised. The Supreme Court rejected the contention. The Court held that Section 24, read plainly, does not speak of taking toll in excess of the lawful limit only from persons who use the ferry. The section provides that every lessee or other authorised person asking or taking more than the lawful toll, or without due cause delaying any person, animal, vehicle or other thing, shall be punished with fine up to one hundred rupees. The Court reasoned that the Act was enacted for regulating ferries, but that did not mean an illegal demand under the pretext of a claim by way of toll, when it is not legally claimable, was not intended to be prohibited. The definition of ferry in Section 5 is inclusive and not exhaustive, and it does not control or throw helpful light on the interpretation of Section 24. The section is designed to protect persons crossing the river against harassment and abuse of the privileged position which a toll lessee occupies. Whether a person owes no toll while crossing the river bed or owes only 20 paise, the demand of payment on the pretext that it is due as toll when legally not due attracts Section 24. The question whether the appellant's case also falls within extortion under the Indian Penal Code is not strictly relevant, because if his case is covered by Section 24, he is liable under that provision. The Court also noted that the Additional Sessions Judge was not quite right in observing that the defence of the accused could be ignored, because the defence that the accused was entitled to claim toll would tend to support the complainant's case that the amount was demanded as toll. To exclude cases like the present from Section 24 would unduly restrict its effectiveness and facilitate illegal recoveries. Finally, the Court observed that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal but only a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly in cases of grave miscarriage of justice, and no such infirmity was shown. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 24 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 was upheld.

Law Points