IMPORTANT POINT
Section 13 of Maritime Zones of India Act, 1981 mandates that on conviction of the master and charterer of an offence under section 12 not only penalty of fine shall M Imposed but the vessel used in or in connection with the commission of such offence has to be confiscated.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THERE WAS FISH ON BOARD WHICH INCLUDES HOLD OF TRAWLERS—HELD SUPREME COURT CANNOT CONSIDER QUESTION WHETHER TRAWLERS WERE ENGAGED IN FISHING WITHIN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OF INDIA IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ACT OR RULES FRAMED THERE UNDER

Judgment

RAY, J. :- Crl. A. Nos. 644-45/87 and Crl. A. Nos. 642-43/87

These appeals by special leave are against the judgment and order dated 24th April, 1987 passed by the High Court of Bombay dismissing criminal appeal No. 636 of 1986 filed by masters of two trawlers against their conviction and sentence and allowing appeal No. 496 of 1986 filed by Commander S. D. Baijal against the acquittal of accused Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. the charterer company and its Managing Director and also releasing the trawlers. The High Court convicted the accused Nos. 3 and 4 for contravention of sub-section (6) of section 5 of the Maritime Zones of India Act, 1981 read with section 7 thereof and rule 16 of Maritime Zones of India Rules, 1982. The High Court also ordered confiscation of the two trawlers and to vest the same in favour of Central Government under section 13 of the Maritime Zones of India Act.

2. The trawlers in questions which are foreign vessels are chartered by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 of this appeal for the purpose of fishing in Maritime Zone of India after obtaining permit under section 5 of Maritime Zones of India Act in short M.Z.I. Act. These two trawlers along with three other pairs of trawlers were apprehended and seized by Coast guard Ship Vikram Commanded by Commander S.D. Baijal for fishing operations in the exclusive economic zone of India in violation of the terms and conditions of permit and the letter of intent granted to that company by the Government of India under section 5(4) of M.Z.I. Act and in violation of Maritime Zones of India Rules, in short M.Z.I. Rules, 1982 as amended. They were prosecuted by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court Ballard Estate, Bombay on the complaint of Commander S. D. Baijal filed as authorised officer under section 19 of the M.Z.I. Act. The masters of the two trawlers, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of this appeal were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively and the other accused respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Were acquitted and the trawlers and the fishes thereon were ordered to be released on payment of the detention charges. Of the other three pairs of foreign trawlers chartered by Indian company for fishing in the maritime zone of India under permit granted under M.Z.I. Act which were seized and prosecuted, two pairs of trawlers with fishes thereon were ordered to be confiscated while one pair of these trawlers were directed to be released. The masters of each pair of trawlers were similarly convicted and sentenced to pay fine for violation of provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. The masters of the pair of trawlers filed criminal appeal No. 636 of 1986 against their conviction and sentence while the complaining Commander S. D. Baijal filed criminal appeal No. 496 of 1986 against the order of acquittal of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. the Managing Director of the Company and the Company and also against the release of the pair of trawlers in spite of conviction of the masters under section 12(b) of M.Z.I. Act by the Magistrate. These two appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment by the High Court, Bombay whereby criminal appeal No. 636 of 1986 was allowed in part by modifying the sentence of the masters of the trawlers from R.I. for one year to S.1. for 9 months and from R.I. for 9 months to S.I. for 6 months. In Criminal appeal No. 436 of 1986 the accused respondents Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the Managing Director and the Company were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- each and the trawlers were ordered to be confiscated with the fishes thereon or in case of sale of the same the proceeds thereof. The High Court also held the masters of trawlers guilty under rule 8(1)(q) and they were convicted under section 12(a) instead of section 12(b) of the M.Z.I. Act but maintained the sentence of penalty.

4. It is against this judgment and order the instant appeals on special leave have be