BASUDEV HAZRA versus MATIAR RAHAMAN MANDAL

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 21-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

478 
BASUDEV HAZRA 
v. 
MATIAR RAHAMAN MANDAL 
January 21, 1971 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
Bengal Ferries Act; 1886, s. 24--Scope of-If lessee in respect of tofls 
cmt be penalised even where he levies toll when person does not usev ferry 
but river-bed-Or when he levies charge in excess of prescribed rate. 
The appellant was a leaseholder in respect of tolls of a public feay 
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 
appella::it was therea'fter convicted for offences under sections 23 and 24 
of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. 
In revision, the Additional Ses..ions 
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. 
Al-
though the High Court accepted the recommend.ation 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. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
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 
F 
Act was enacted for regulating ferries but that does not mean that an ille-
gai demand under the pretext of claim by way of toll under \his Act, when 
it is not legally claimable, was not intended by the legislature to be pre>-
hibited 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 punish-
able. Whether the person from whom the amount is demanded or received 
G 
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-Fl 
To exclude cases like the present from the operatioµ of s. 24 would 
unduly restrict its effectiveness aq!f would indeed facilitate. illegal recoveries 
prohibited by it. 
To~ that extent it would defeat the ob1ect and purpose 
H 
which this section is intended to achieve. [182 Al 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
171 of 1968. 
••
A 
B. HAZRA v. M. R. MANDAL (Dua, J.) 
479 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 13, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal 
Refere,nce No. 36 of. 1967. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
B 
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 Daroodar. This lease was 
for a period of three years (August 14, 1963 to August 13, 1966): 
C 
Ex. 2. 
On November 30, 1964 Matiar Rahman Manda! filed a 
complaint against the appellant in the court of the Sadar Sub-Divi-
sional 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.0. who directed an enquiry. 
This infuriated 
D 
the appellant. On November 29, 1964 the appellant realised double 
the amount of toll and on protesl 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 olfences. The appellant was sentenced to a fine of 
E 
Rs. I 0/- under s. 23 and to fine of Rs. 20/- under s. 24 : in de-
fault of payment of fine in the former- case he was to undergo sim

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.