P L D 1964 Dacca 728 (PLP)

The number of passengers carried is not disputed and there is no evidence to show whether the vessel was plying in the night on partially smooth water or at day time on smooth water. If ft was plying on partially smooth water, then there was no sanc tion for plying it on such water during night. If it was plying on smooth water, then there was no restriction to its plying during night. In fact, the Certificate of Survey expressly authorises voyages of an unrestricted character in smooth water. It would be seen that the prosecution has not established whether the vessel was found plying on smooth water or on partially smooth water. In the 'aforesaid circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners on this count, namely, for having plied the said vessel during night, cannot be sustained because the permission to ply by night is dependent on the question as to whether the vessel was plying on smooth or partially smooth water. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the petitioners and the sentences pronounced on them in respect of the accusation levelled against them, namely, that they were guilty of plying the said vessel during night. There is, however, another charge upon which the petitioners have been convicted under section 56 of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act runs thus: "

10. The owner or master of the mechanically propelled vessel for which a Certificate of Survey has been granted, shall forthwith, on the receipt of the certificate, cause one of the duplicates thereof to be affixed and kept affixed so long as it remains in force and the mechanically propelled vessel is in use, on some conspicuous part of the mechanically propelled vessel where it may be easily read by all persons on board." And section 56 is in the following terms: "

56. If the Certificate of Survey is not kept affixing in a mechanically propelled vessel as required by section 10, the owner and the master of the mechanically propelled vessel shall each be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees." In this case there is clear evidence against the petitioners that they were guilty of having committed an offence under the said section 56, and this point is not contested by learned counsel for the petitioners. We, therefore, maintain the conviction of the petitioners and the sentences imposed upon them in respect of this count only, namely, for having committed an offence under section 56 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that the petitioners in this case succeed partially before us. The Rule is made absolute, with regard to the conviction of the petitioners as well as the sentences passed on them in respect of the accusation that they were guilty of plying the aforesaid vessel M. L. "Abadan" during night and it is discharged in respect of their conviction under section 56 of the Act. Their conviction, and sentences passed on them, under section 56, are hereby affirmed. The Rule is disposed of in terms of the orders made above. In all these seven cases, which we have heard analogously, we have noticed with some anxiety that prosecutions under special enactments, such as we are concerned in these cases, are not conducted by experienced lawyers. There has hardly been any attempt to establish, by legal evidence, the essential ingredients of an offence. Special statutes creating special offences are not, very often, easy of application. It would be advisable if more experienced lawyers are asked to conduct the trial of such offences. A. SUBHAN CHOWDHURY, J.‑I agree. S. Q. Order accordingly.