Section 137 IPC - Deserter Concealed on Board Merchant Vessel Through Negligence of Master
Section 137 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 imposed a monetary penalty on the master or person in charge of a merchant vessel where an armed forces deserter was concealed on board and the concealment could have been known but for neglect of duty or want of discipline on the vessel.
Text of Section 137 IPC
137. Deserter concealed on board merchant vessel through negligence of master. The master or person in charge of a merchant vessel, on board of which any deserter from the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India is concealed, shall, though ignorant of such concealment, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred rupees, if he might have known of such concealment but for some neglect of his duty as such master or person in charge, or but for some want of discipline on board of the vessel.
Meaning and scope
Section 137 addressed responsibility for discipline and supervision aboard a merchant vessel. Unlike provisions that require actual knowledge, its text expressly contemplated liability even where the master or person in charge was ignorant of the concealment. The critical issue was whether the concealment could have been discovered but for neglect of duty by the person in charge or want of discipline aboard the vessel.
Essential ingredients of Section 137 IPC
- There must be a merchant vessel.
- A deserter from the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India must be concealed aboard that vessel.
- The person proceeded against must be the master or person in charge of the merchant vessel.
- The person may in fact be ignorant of the concealment.
- He must nevertheless have been in a position to know of the concealment but for neglect of his duty, or but for want of discipline on board.
Actual knowledge was not essential
The words "though ignorant of such concealment" are significant. Section 137 did not make actual knowledge of the deserter's presence an indispensable condition. Instead, the provision focused on whether proper discharge of the master's duties and adequate discipline aboard the vessel would have enabled the concealment to be known.
Neglect of duty or want of discipline
The statutory rule linked liability to one of two circumstances: neglect by the master or person in charge in performing the duties associated with that position, or want of discipline aboard the vessel. Accordingly, the mere fact that a deserter was found on a merchant vessel did not, by the language of the section alone, dispense with the requirement connecting the failure to discover the concealment with neglect or deficient discipline.
Penalty and procedural classification
| Offence | Deserter concealed on board a merchant vessel through negligence of the master or person in charge |
|---|---|
| Penalty | Penalty not exceeding Rs. 500 |
| Cognizable | No |
| Bailable | Yes |
| Triable by | Any Magistrate |
Under the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the offence under Section 137 IPC was classified as non-cognizable and bailable and was triable by any Magistrate.
Section 136 and Section 137 IPC
Section 136 IPC dealt with harbouring an armed forces deserter with knowledge or reason to believe that the person had deserted. Section 137 dealt specifically with concealment of a deserter aboard a merchant vessel where neglect of duty or want of discipline prevented discovery. The provisions therefore addressed materially different conduct and mental elements.
Historical amendment notes
1. The words "Navy or Air Force" were substituted by Act 10 of 1927, section 2 and the First Schedule, for the earlier wording "or Navy".
2. The words "Government of India" replaced the former reference to "Queen" by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950.
Related provisions
Section 137 formed part of Chapter VII of the IPC, which dealt with offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force. The immediately surrounding provisions dealt with abetment of desertion, harbouring a deserter and abetment of acts of insubordination.