Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. SAIKIA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.
Captain Subash Kumar, Appellant
Versus
The Principal Officer Mercantile Marine Deptt. Madras, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 135 of
Decided on 22-2-1991
(ii) Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 – Section 363 - Power of Central Govt. to direct enquiry into the charges of incompetency or misconduct - Complaint u/s 363, filed by the Principal Officer, complaining about the negligence of the Master of the ship - Whether maintainable - (No, the Principal Officer is not competent to file complaint u/s 363 - All ingredients required u/s 363 were not satisfied in the impugned complaint).
Held: One of the requisites of section 363 is that the Central Government must have reason to believe that there are grounds for charging any master etc. with incompetency or misconduct; and such reason to believe must have been arrived at otherwise than in the course of a formal investigation into the shipping casualty and it is the Central Government who may transmit the statement of a case to court having jurisdiction under section 361. We have to examine whether the complaint is ex facie under section 363. It nowhere mentions that the Central Government had such reason to believe. It nowhere mentions that it was a transmission of the statement of a case to the court by the Central Government. It also nowhere mentions that the reason to believe had been found otherwise than in the course of a formal investigation into the shipping casualty. On the other hand in para 2 it says that the complainant is the Principal Officer who is competent person appointed under the Act to complain about the negligence of the accused. There is no doubt that he is not empowered under section 363. In para 6 the complaint says that the court under section 363 has got powers to make an inquiry into the charges of incompetency or misconduct of the accused and para 8 mentions. The inquiry so as to cancel the certificate of the competency of the master namely the accused which has been granted by the Central Government may be recommended under this Act after holding the above said inquiry and thus render justice." Therefore, prima facie the complaint does not disclose the ingredients required under section 363. (para 19)
(iii) International Law - Law of the seas - Territorial Waters of India - Extent of, -
Held: That the limit of the territorial waters is a line every point of which is at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline. Under Article 297 of the Constitution of India things of value within territorial waters or continental shelf and resources of the exclusive economic zone vest in the Union.
Sub-section (3), thus, empowers the Central Government if it considers necessary so to do having regard to the International Law and State practice, alter, by notification in the Official Gazette, the limit of territorial waters. Order sub-section (4) no such notification shall be issued unless resolutions approving the issue of such notification are passed by both Houses of Parliament A proclamation was made by the President of India published on September 30, 1967 in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part III, Section 2 Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs. (para 10)
Further held: The concepts of territorial waters, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone are different concepts and the proclamation of exclusive economic zone to the limit of 200 nautical miles into the sea from the shore baseline would in no way extend the limit of territorial waters which extends to 12 nautical miles measured from the appropriate baseline. The submission that territorial waters extends to the limit of 200 nautical miles by virtue of the, notification extending exclusive economic zone to 200 nautical miles has, therefore, to be rejected. (para 12)
JUDGMENT
K.N. SAIKIA, J.:—Special leave granted.
2. The appellant Captain Subash Kumar was the Master of the Merchantship M., V. Eamaco owned by Eamaco Shipping Co. (P.) Ltd., Singapore, hereinafter called the ship. On 12-8-86 the ship went into distress due to the vessels hold Nos. 2 and 3 taking in water, the pumping operations being insufficient and though initially the appellant sent radio message for help he failed to launch the life boats and life crafts and to abandon the ship to enable M. V. Shoun World to pick-them up and due to the failure of motor life boats and life crafts, when the ship sank, only 11 out of 28 persons were rescued resulting in loss of life to the remaining persons. At about 18.25 Hrs. that day Madras Radio, which was the communication center between the land and seafaring ships, informed the office of the Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Department, Madras, District Madras, hereinafter called as Principal Officer, that an urgent message had been received by the said Radio from the appellant and from that communication it was clear that the ship under the command of the appellant was posted at position 11 degrees 08 minutes North, 83 degrees 41 minutes East on 12th at 11.30 Greenwich Meantime. The said message further indicated that the vessels hold Nos. 2 and 3 were taking in water and the pumpting out operation was not sufficient and it called the assistance from all ships in the vicinity. At 20.28 Hrs. the Madras Radio again contacted the Principal Officer and said that the Radio had received SOS message (distress message) and he took necessary steps.
3. The Principal Officer filed a complaint in Court of 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras-8 against the appellant for initiation of an inquiry proceeding under Section 363 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Central Act No. 4 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act, complaining about the negligence of the appellant while he was the Master of the ship as aforesaid; and that at that time he was residing at Laxmi Niwas, 41, Marshal Road, Egmore. Madras-8 and further stating that the shipping casualty had occurred due to sheer negligence and gross incompetence on the part of the appellant in commanding the ship and the crew; and that the very fact that the life boats and life floats were not used and not even lowered so as to make use of that indicated that the appellant had not even thought about that which a Captain of the ship should have done, resulting in loss of the ship, the cargo and valuable lives of the sailors who had at no time doubted about the competency of the Master or revolted against him. The complaint accordingly said that the Magistrates Court by the provisions of Section 363 had got powers to make inquiry into the charges of incompetence or of misconduct of the appellant therein. It also said that the inquiry might be commenced in accordance with the provisions of the Act so as to cancel the certificate of competency of the Master, namely, the appellant, which had been granted by the Central Government; and that cancellation might be recommended under the Act after holding the aforesaid inquiry. The complaint also said that the appellant rendered himself liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of Part XII of the Act which envisaged various modes of investigation and inquiry; and u/ S. 363 the Court had powers to make an inquiry into the charges of incompetency or misconduct of the appellant.
4. On 25-3-1988, the appellant received a notice stating that the inquiry proceedings were instituted against him before the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 363 of the Act. The appellant thereupon filed Cr. M.P. No. 2717 of 1988 in the High Court S. 482 of the Cr. P.C. stating that the proceedings were by an abuse of process of the Court and the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint against the appellant when there was no negligence on his part. It was also stated that the fact that the appellant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
