( 1 ) THIS Rule has been obtained by one Nossibolla against an order acquitting the opposite party D. Stephens.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner briefly is as follows : He is a seaman. He wished to get engaged on board a ship and for this purpose he had to approach a body known as the Calcutta Maritime Board to give him what is known as a Muster Card. He applied to the opposite party D. Stephens for this purpose and Stephens gave him a Muster Card but demanded payment of one rupee for this. The contention of the petitioner is that Stephens has contravened the provisions of Sections 25 and 26, Merchant Shipping Act. This case was tried together with another case of a similar nature namely the case of 'nasurulla v. Stephens'. The evidence was recorded by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. He was transferred and his successor has passed the present judgment acquitting Stephens.

( 3 ) THE decision of this case will depend mainly upon the construction of Sections 24, 25 and 26, Merchant Shipping Act. The sections are as follows:24 (1) "the Governor General in Council or any person duly authorised by the Governor General in Council in this behalf may grant to such persons as may be deemed fit licenses to engage or supply seamen for merchant ships in British India. 25 (1) A person shall not engage, or supply a seaman to be entered on board any ship in British India unless that person either holds a license under this Act for the purpose, or is the owner or master or mate of the ship, or is bona fide the servant and in the constant employ of the owner, or is a shipping-master. 26 (1) A person shall not demand or receive, either directly or indirectly, from any seaman, or from any person seeking employment as a seaman, or from any person on his behalf, any remuneration whatever for providing him with employment other than the fees authorised by this Act. " 26 (2) "if a person acts in contravention of this section, he shall for each such offence be liable to a fine of fifty rupees, and, if a licensed person, shall forfeit his license. " it is quite clear from these sections that a person shall not supply a seaman for employment in any ship unless he has a license granted under the Act for this purpose, or unless he: "is the owner or master or mate of the ship, or is a bona fide the servant and in the constant employ of the owner, or is a shipping master. "as provided in Section 25 (1) of the Act. Although it was specifically alleged that the opposite party had no license, there is no evidence to show that there was any such license. I take it therefore that Stephens had no license granted under the Act. He cannot rely on the operation of the latter part of Section 25 (1) as he is neither the owner nor master nor mate of the ship, nor is he a bona fide servant in the constant employ of the owner, nor is a shipping-master. Learned Advocate appearing for Stephens contends that he is a servant of all shipping companies because the Maritime Board is a Board consisting of the owners of ships and representatives of seamen. In my opinion, there is no force in this argument. The word "servant" is used in quite a different sense. He must be the servant and in the constant employ of the owner. The mere fact that the owners employ him for the purpose of supplying seamen or engage the organisation of which he is the Secretary to supply seaman does not make him a servant within the meaning of Section 25 (1) of the Act. This is perfectly clear from the provisions of Section 25 (2), Merchant Shipping Act which prohibits any person from employing another to supply seamen unless such other person holds a license or is himself the owner, the master or mate of the ship or is bona fide servant and in the constant employ of the owner or is a shipping-master. The subsection makes it quite clear that the mere engagement of a person to supply seamen does not make that person a servant within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act. Thus upon the e