The captain must have known about the deserter to be punished.

The section specifically says the captain can be fined even if ignorant of the concealment, as long as that ignorance was due to his own negligence or poor ship discipline.

This is a serious criminal offense with heavy punishment.

The penalty is a fine only, capped at five hundred rupees, reflecting its nature as a regulatory or administrative penalty rather than a severe criminal punishment.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 137

repealed

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.§

Why this exists

This provision comes from colonial-era concerns about military discipline and desertion in British India. Merchant vessels were a common way for deserters to escape detection and flee the country or region. By making ship captains responsible for maintaining basic vigilance and discipline aboard their vessels, the law aimed to close this escape route without requiring proof that the captain knowingly helped the deserter — negligence alone was enough to trigger a penalty.

Common misconceptions

Myth: The captain must have known about the deserter to be punished.
Fact: The section specifically says the captain can be fined even if ignorant of the concealment, as long as that ignorance was due to his own negligence or poor ship discipline.
Myth: This is a serious criminal offense with heavy punishment.
Fact: The penalty is a fine only, capped at five hundred rupees, reflecting its nature as a regulatory or administrative penalty rather than a severe criminal punishment.