Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The accused in this case are the owners of the steamer San Francisco Xavier which left Bombay for Goa on the 3Ist May 1921 in charge of her Master. At the time of sailing she had certificate 'A' as required under Sections 9 and 10 of the Native Passenger Ships Act X of 1887.
2. Section 9 says :-
A ship intended to carry passengers shall not commence a voyage from a port or place appointed under this Act, unless the Master holds two certificates to the effect mentioned in the two next following sections.
3. Section 10 says:-
The first of the certificates (hereafter called certificate 'A'; shall state that the ship is seaworthy and properly equipped, fitted and ventilated and the number of passengers which she is capable of carrying.
4. We are not concerned in this case with certificate 'B', as that was not required when this particular voyage was commenced under the rules.
5. The term 'voyage' is defined in Section 5, Clause (5) as meaning When used without the prefix 'long' or 'short', the whole distance between the ship's port or place of departure and her final port or place of arrival.
6. The certificate carried by thin vessel expired a few hours after the ship had left the port. The ship arrived at Goa and returned after a few hours' stay to Bombay, arriving on the 2nd June 1921. Unfortunately it is not very clear what was the charge on which the accused were convicted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate or what was the voyage which the ship commenced without holding the certificate 'A'. It cannot be the voyage from Goa, as Goa is not a port or place appointed under the Act. Even assuming it was a port appointed under the Act within the British India, considering the nature of the trade .carried on by this steamer, sailing from Bombay, calling at coast ports, and a short time at each port and then at cannot be said that the outward voyage from the ship's port or place of departure was one voyage, and the return voyage from the furthest port reached a second voyage. The ship continues on her voyage the whole time, and in such a case the final port must be the port of original departure. No doubt the rules provided by the Act were intended for the safety of passengers, and the certificate 'A' which expired on the 31st May was one granted for the six months of fair weather. The certificate 'A' which would be granted on the 1st of June would necessarily be of a different character, and if it is desired that in order to secure the safety of the passengers that a ship leaving at the end of May should also hold a rough weather certificate, if the ship does not return during May then that must be provided for by an amendment in the Act. It seems curious that the learned Magistrate has not noticed, in convicting the accused under Section 9, taken with Section 31, that it is nowhere stated from what port the ship commenced the voyage without a certificate. That would be in itself sufficient to vitiate the conviction. But in any event I am of opinion that on the facts of this case the voyage from Bombay to Goa and back was one voyage. I think, therefore, that the conviction was wrong and it must b8 quashed, and if the fine has been recovered it must be refunded.
7. I agree.