Allowed

Dudnik Valentyn v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Nov 2017CRL A(MD)/41/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arms Act convictions of 35 crew members and guards aboard a foreign anti-piracy vessel were set aside. The court found territorial-water location unproved, upheld innocent passage and applied the ordinary-armament exemption. All appellants were acquitted, with release directed unless required in another case.

What did the court decide?

All 35 appellants acquitted; release unless required in another case. Deposits refundable and passports and Seaman Books returnable on application.

Dudnik Valentyn Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.11.2017

¶4

[Judgment Reserved on 20.11.2017]

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶7

Crl.A(MD)Nos.41, 43 and 44 of 2016 and CRL MP(MD)Nos.5452 to 5454 of 2016

¶8

1.Dudnik Valentyn 2.Sidorenko Valeriy

¶9

3.Lalitkumar Gurung

¶10

4.Radhesh Dhar Dwivedi

5.Naveen Rana

6.Dinesh Narayanan

7.Ramesh Kumar

8.Rajan Thandapani

9.Abijit Ashok Sawani

¶16

10.Jagdish Prasad

¶17

: Appellants /A1 and A3 to A11 in Crl.A.No.41 of 2016

¶18

1.Paul David Dennish Towers

¶19

2.William Irving

¶20

3.Nicholas Simpson

¶21

4.Raymond John Tindall

¶22

5.Nicholas James

¶23

6.John Wilson Armstrong : Appellants /A2, A19, A24 to A27 in Crl.A.No.43 of 2016

¶24

1.Renee Tonissar

¶25

2.Igor Blinkov

¶26

3.Raigokustmann

¶27

4.Vladislov Korsunov

¶28

5.Lauriader

¶29

6.Alvar Hunt

¶30

7.Dennis Sukhenlov

¶31

8.Igor Totrov Lev 9.Roman Obeitsak 10.Krito Koha https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.Levgen Semenov 12.Aleksei Tutonin

¶32

¶33

13.Demitri Pappel 14.Jogiste 15.Andrej Gortsagov 16.K.V.Prakashan 17.Sudheer 18.Unnikrishnan 19.Harijeet Singh : Appellants /Accused A12 to A18, A20, A21, A22, A23, A28, A30, A33, A34, A29, A31, A32,A35 in Crl.A.No.44 of 2016

¶34

Vs.

¶35

The Inspector of Police, 'Q'Branch CID, Thoothukudi District Marine Police Station, Tharuvaikualm (Cr.No.18 of 2013) : Respondent in all Criminal Appeals

¶36

Common Prayer: Appeals are filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in S.C.No.262 of 2015 vide Judgment, dated 11.01.2016 and acquit the appellants.

¶37

For Appellants A1 and A3	1,2 / : Mr.E.K.Nanda Kumar Senior Counsel Assisted by Dr.Thushara James For Mr.R.Anand in Crl.A.No.41/2016
For Appellants A4 to A10	3 to 10 : Mr.T.Mohan For P.Muthusamy in Crl.A.No.41/2016
For Appellants Accused A2, A1 A24 to A27	1 to 6/ : Mr.E.K.Nanda Kumar 9, Senior Counsel in Crl.A.No.43 of 2016 Assisted by Dr.Thushara James For Mr.R.Anand in Crl.A.No.43/2016
For Appellants A16 to A18	17 to 19/ : Mr.S.Sivakumar For P.Muthusamy in Crl.A.No.44/2016

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

¶40

For Appellants 1 to 16 : Mr.E.K.Nanda Kumar A12 to A15, A20 to A23 Senior Counsel A28, A30, A33, A34, A29, in Crl.A.No.44 of 2016 A31, A32 & A35 Assisted by Dr.Thushara James For Mr.R.Anand

¶41

For Respondents : Mr.Emiliyas in all Crl.As. State Public Prosecutor, Assisted by Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶42

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶43

The present Criminal Appeals are directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.262 of 2015, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 11.01.2016, holding that the appellants / accused A1 to A35 are guilty for the offences under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each, for the offence under Section 25(1-B) of The Arms Act, 1959 and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each, for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(f) of the Arms Act.

¶44

The brief facts, which leading to filing the present appeals, are as follows:-

¶45

On 11.10.2013, the Indian Coast Guard received an information that a vessel named ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' with arms, ammunition and guards stationed at Latitude 080 52.0' North and Longitude 0780 26.7' East on 12.10.2013 at 03.30 hours and the location about 10.8 Nautical Miles from Thoothukudi Port, and 3.8 N.m from the baseline promulgated by the Ministry of External Affairs Notification SO.1197(E), Dated 11th May 2009, without any permission to enter into the Indian Coast and one unidentified boat from Thoothukudi was suspected to have sailed to that vessel for doing some illegal act. On the basis of information received, the Indian Coast Guard Station Ship "Naikidevi" intercepted the suspected vessel. On enquiry, the crew members admitted that they were carrying with arms and ammunitions on the vessel. On such admission, the Coast Guard Ship directed “M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio” proceed to Tuticorin Port, for further investigation. The vessel was accordingly escorted under the supervision of Captain KPP Kumar along with 3 armed guards of Indian Coast Guard Station. The vessel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reached the port around 13.25 hrs on 12.10.2013. Thereafter, the vessel was boarded by Joint Interrogation Committee comprising

¶46

¶47

representatives of Indian Coast Guard, Customs and other agencies on the same day at 14.00 hours. During interrogation, they found huge quantity of arms and ammunitions kept in the vessel ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio''. They verified the Deck Log book entry of the vessel and it tallied with the position of anchored vessel in the Indian Territorial waters. The Joint Interrogation continued on 13.10.2013 also and the minutes of the Joint Interrogation Committee reveals that the vessel was carrying arms, but did not have any authorisation for the same. The Master of the vessel could not produce documents or authorisation for carrying arms even after 24 hours. The minutes also observed that the vessel has received diesel illegally at Sea from a fishing boat. In accordance with the minutes of the Joint Interrogation Team, the vessel was handed over to the Coastal Security Group, Thoothukudi, on 13th October 2013. Mr.Narendran, Assistant Commandant Boarding Officer of Indian Coast Guard Ship, Naikidevi, lodged a written complaint with the Tharuvaikulam Marine Police Station, Tuticorin, narrating the aforementioned facts with details, which had come to their knowledge while inspecting the vessel.

¶48

(ii) On receipt of the written complaint on 13.10.2013 at about 18.00 hours, the Inspector of Police, Marine Police Station, Tharuvaikulam registered an FIR in Crime No.18 of 2013, u/s. 25 (1B), (a)(f) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7 (1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 2(m) (5) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 and took up investigation. Latter, on 15.10.2013, as per the orders of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu in R.C.No.176936/Crime/IV(2)/2013, dated 15.10.2013, the case was transferred to 'Q' Branch CID, for further investigation.

¶49

(iii) The Inspector of Police, 'Q' Branch, Thoothukudi, took up the investigation on 16.10.2013 and visited the vessel "M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio”, which was secured at 2nd berth, V.O.C. Port, Thoothukudi and prepared a rough sketch and observation mahazar on the same day. On 17.10.2013, the Investigating Officer visited the vessel to collect some more documents for the purpose of investigation. During the visit, it was found that 35 fire arms, 5,682 ammunition and 102 magazines were kept in the vessel, without any documents for its possession. Hence, those arms and ammunition were seized after physical verification from 11.30 p.m on the same day to 4.00 a.m on 18.10.2013. The factum of seizure of arms / ammunition was intimated to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi. Seizure was effected under the cover of mahazar, attested by independent witnesses, as there were no valid documents in the vessel, for such possession.

¶50

(iv) On 18.10.2013, in continuation of earlier investigation A4 / Paul David Dennish Towers, A6 to A37 were arrested at about https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 07.45 hours at 2nd berth, V.O.C Port, Thoothukudi. A3 and A5 were allowed to be in the vessel for its maintenance, as per their

¶51

¶52

request. All the arrest had been made after observing all legal formalities. On 19.10.2013, A3 and A5 were also arrested in the vessel at 2nd berth V.O.C Port, Thoothukudi, after observing all legal formalities as well as the accused A3 to A37, who were sailing in ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' vessel were unable to produce licence or any authorisation order from the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 for the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel. They have also not kept such documents, which they were expected to keep in the vessel itself during its voyage.

¶53

(v). The seized fire arms and ammunition have been remanded to judicial custody on 18.10.2013 and kept at the Armoury of CISF, Thoothukudi. On 19.10.13, accused A38 Maria Anton Vijay was arrested and A39 Vijay, A40 Ranjithkumar, A41 Murugesh and A42 Selvam were arrested on 20.10.2013, for being responsible for the illegal supply of diesel to the vessel “M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio” with the able assistance and facilitation of absconding accused A43 to A45, when the vessel was anchored in the territorial waters of India in contravention of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices), Order 1998, which is punishable under Essential Commodities Act.

¶54

(vi) On 24.10.2013, A4 Paul David Dennish Towers, A6 Lalith Kumar Gurung and A7 Radheshdhar Dwivedi were taken on police custody and based on their confession, Investigating Agency visited the vessel “M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio”, on 27.10.2013 and recovered certain documents relating to the weapon movements and mail transactions between the vessel and 'Advan Fort Company'. In addition to those seizures, the Central Processing Unit (CPU) and the Digital recorder from the vessel bridge, besides 1 litre of diesel from 10 barrels kept on the deck which was illegally purchased from the accused A38 to A45 were also collected. On 31.10.2013, the seized 35 fire arms and samples of 50 ammunition of five categories ie., (i) 7.62 x 39 mm -10 (ii) 7.62 x 63 mm-10 (iii) 7.62 x 51 mm -10 (iv) 5.56 x 45 mm -10 and (v) 9 mm -10 and 17 magazines of 9 categories (I) Browning Ltrac Weapon -2, (ii) CZ858 Weapon -2 (iii) SAIGA M3 Weapon-2 (iv) HKG3 Weapon-2 (v) SLR Weapon-2 (vi) Benelli MRI Weapon-2 (vii) Benelli Argo E Weapon-1 (viii) Oberland Weapon-2 (ix) Glock 17 Weapon-2 were sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai, for analysis. Similarly, the diesel samples collected from 10 barrels were also sent to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Washermanpet, Chennai, for analysis. The Ballistics Report of Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai, dated 08.11.2013, discloses that 49 items were analyzed and among them, items 16 to 21 are prohibited arms.

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vii) Investigation also disclosed that the vessel belongs to A1 Advan Fort Company, 1875 Eye Street, MW, 5th Floor, Washington

¶56

¶57

DC-2006, USA and its Operations Director is A2 / Mohamed Frajallah. Both the 'Advan Fort Company' and its Operations Director Mohamed Frajallah are mainly responsible for all the clandestine acts committed by the other accused A3 / Dudnik Valentyn, Captain of the vessel, A4 / Paul David Dennish Towers, Tactical Deployment Officer of the vessel, who were found in physical possession of 35 fire arms and other ammunition without any valid documents in the vessel ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio''. A1 / Advan Fort Company represented by Mohamed Frajallah and A2 / Mohamed Frajallah, Operations Director of the Company are mainly responsible for the control over the administration of the company's vessel “M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio” in which, 35 fire arms and other ammunition were kept by A3 / Dudnik Valentyn and A4 / Paul David Dennish Towers jointly with other crew and guards, who were the occupants of the vessel, without having any licence and authorisation from the Competent Authority, only with the connivance and knowledge of the said company. Further A1 and A2 are also liable to be prosecuted for the contravention of the relevant provisions of The Arms Act, 1959, for such possession of the fire arms by A3 and A4 in the vessel, who were keeping the arms and ammunition at the joint control of other occupants of the vessel, such as A5 to A37, the crew and Guards on their behalf.

¶58

(viii) Further A1 / 'Advan Fort Company' represented by A2 and A2, the Operations Director of the said company are directly responsible for illegal bunkering of diesel from A38 to A45 and such purchase was effected by A3, A5, A6 and A7, employees of the vessel, on the instruction of A1 and A2. A1 'Advan Fort Company' represented by its Operations Director Mahamed Frajallah, owner of the vessel “M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio” and it is a utility vessel registered in Sierra Leone in West Africa. A2 / Mohamed Frajallah, Operations Director, Advan Fort Company, USA is mainly responsible for the business administration of the vessel and also for the employees of “M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio”. A3 / Dudnik Valentyn, Ukraine, is the Captain of the vessel, who is responsible for the general control of the vessel for making arrangements of bunkering and provisions received illegally and dishonestly. He also aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the ship without any licence or authorisation from the competent authority and he himself directly having the control and possession of the fire arms kept in the vessel, jointly with A4 and other crew and guards. A4 / Paul David Dennish Towers, Britain, Tactical Deployment Officer, who is in charge of the armed guards in the vessel and looking after sending and receiving of guards with arms and ammunition to merchant vessels and maintaining the relevant records; A5 / Sidorenko Valeriy, Ukraine, Chief Engineer, the person, who operates the engine of the vessel, aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel and indulged himself in illegal bunkering; A6 Lalitkumar Gurung, Maharashtra, India, Chief Officer, who is the person in charge of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Deck Department and navigation watch, responsible for maintaining Deck Log Book and making entries relating to the vessel movements

¶59

¶60

and about the illegal bunkering and unauthorised purchase of diesel from the Accused A38 to A45 and also maintaining the Chief Officers Deck Log Book in the bridge of the vessel, aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel and indulged himself in illegal bunkering; A7 / Radhesh Dhar Dwivedi, Uttar Pradesh, India, Second Officer, the person in charge of navigation watch was responsible for maintaining Deck Log Book and Chief Officer's Deck Log Book in the bridge of the vessel along with A6 Lalitkumar Gurung, alternatively once in six hours, aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel and indulged himself in illegal bunkering; A8 / Naveen Rana, Himachal Pradesh, India, Third Officer/Engineer is assisting the operation of the vessel aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel; A9 / Dinesh Narayanan, Kerala, India, Oiler and A10 / Ramesh Kumar, Himachal Pradesh, India, Oiler, who are the other crew of the vessel assisting engineering Department of the vessel, aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms; A11 / Rajan Thandapani, Tamil Nadu, India and A12 / Abijit Ashok Sawani, Maharashtra, India, Able Bodied Men, the person who are assisting the Deck Officer in doing certain work allotted to them in the bridge for the movement of the vessel and aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel; A13 Jagdish Prasad, Uttaranchal, India, Chief Cook, the person who maintains cooking Department, aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel in joint control; A14 / Renee Tonissaar, Estonia, A16 / Raigokustmann, Estonia, A17 / Vladislov Korsunov, Estonia, A19 / Alvar Hunt, Estonia, A21 / William Irving, United Kingdom, A22 / Igortotrov Lev, Estonia, A24 Krito Koha, Estonia, A25 Levgen Semenov, Ukraine, A27 / Raymond John Tindall, United Kingdom, A28 Nicholas James, United Kingdom, A29 / John Wilson Armstrong, United Kingdom, A31 / K.V.Prakashan, Kerala, India, A33 / Sudheer, Keala, India, A34 / Unnikrishnan, Kerala, India, A36 / Andrej Gortsagov, Estonia, A37 / Harijeet Singh, Punjab, India are Security Guards, who provide security to merchant vessels under their team leaders as directed by A1 / Advan Fort Company through Tactical Deployment Officer of Seaman Guard Ohio and aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition in the vessel.; A15 Ignor Blinkov, Estonia, A18 / Lauriader, Estonia, A29 Dennis Sukhenlov, Estonia, A23 / Roman Obeitsak, Estonia, A26 / Nicholas Simpson, United Kingdom, A30 / Aleksei Tutonin, Estonia, A32 Demitri Pappel, Estonia and A35 / Jogiste, Estonia, Team Leaders, who are in charge of one or more guards armed with fire arms, provides security to other merchant vessels as directed by Advan Fort Company through Tactical Deployment officer of Seaman Guard Ohio, aided and facilitated the possession of fire arms and ammunition; A38 Maria Anton Vijay received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- through his Manager A41 / Murugesh and arranged for getting diesel from 'M.V.S.Muthuvel & Sons' Petrol Bunk, Thoothukudi and also provisions and transported the same to the fishing Harbour in a vehicle 'TATA Ace', bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registration No.TN 69-AH-8457 with the able assistance of A39 to A45 and then the diesel was transported in a fishing boat by A39 / Vijay

¶61

¶62

in his father's boat along with A45 / Vinoth to the vessel unauthorisedly and the boat was operated by one James and indulged himself in illegal sale and supply of diesel to ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' through his associates; A39 / Vijay illegally and unauthorisedly transported about 2,000 litres of diesel in 10 barrels in the fishing boat by himself along with A40 / Ranjithkumar supplied the same to ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' vessel on 11.10.2013 night along with A45 / Vinoth and thus sold the same illegally, when the vessel was in the territorial waters of India and anchored; A41 Murugesh received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/from A43 / Munithevan in his HDFC Bank Account No.11041050004770 at Thoothukudi on 09.10.2013 has withdrawn an amount of Rs.7,00,000/on the same day and handed over to his Master A38 Maria Anton Vijay. On receipt of the same, A38 purchased 2,000 litre of diesel from 'MVS.Muthuvel and Sons Petrol Bunk' at Thoothukudi, for supplying the vessel, as directed by A43 / Munithevan; A42 / Selvam, who accepted the contract with A38 for providing provisions to the vessel in the sea and received a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the transaction, transported the provisions to the vessel M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio, but had to return halfway through due to rough sea, had stored the same in 'Raghu Ice & Cold Storage', Thoothukudi, with an intention for supplying the same to the vessel, the next day and also aided and facilitated and indulged himself in the illegal sale and supply of diesel to the vessel M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio on 11.10.2013; A43 / Munithevan of Chennai received an amount of about Rs.20,00,000/- (40,476 US$) from A1 Advan Fort Company through bank transaction, credited in his HDFC Bank Account No.50200000105782 in Chennai for purchase of diesel and provisions to be supplied to the vessel through his associates at Thoothukudi. On receipt of the same, A43 credited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the HDFC Bank account of A41 Murugesh, the Manger of A38 Maria Anton Vijay at Thoothukudi. On receipt of the same, A41 withdrew an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 09.10.2013 and handed over the same to A38, who in turn purchased 2,000 litres of diesel from 'M.V.S.Muthuvel & Sons Petrol Bunk', Ettayapuram Road, Thoothukudi transported the same to the fishing Harbour with the assistance of other accused by transporting the same in a fishing boat on 11.10.2013 evening; A44 / Vimal on the instruction of A43 / Munithevan informed A38 / Maria Anton Vijay at Thoothukudi regarding the purchase and supply of diesel to the vessel and thus aided and facilitated and indulged himself in illegal supply and sale of diesel to the vessel along with other accused concerned; A45 / Vinoth, who unauthorisedly sailed along with A39 / Vijay in the fishing boat owned by the father of A39 and A40 / Ranjith Kumar supplied and sold diesel in 10 barrels to ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' vessel. A39 and A45 transported the same in a fishing boat from the fishing Harbour aided and facilitated and indulged themselves in the illegal supply and sale of diesel to the vessel on the night of 11.10.2013;

¶63

(ix) All the Guards A14 to A37, who were provided with fire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arms without any proper licence in accordance with the provisions of The Arms Act, 1959 did not possess Flag Nation Endorsement

¶64

¶65

Certificate for their employment in the Flag Nation vessel. The employees of ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' vessel A3 to A37 performing the duties allotted by 'Advan Fort Company' in Washington District of Columbia represented by A2 / Mohamed Frajallah, Operations Director, has registered in the country Sierra Leone in West Africa. They are expected to keep the documents in the vessel in their journey at sea such as (1) certificate of registration (2) International Tonnage Certificate (1969), (3) Cargo ship safety Certificate (4) International Load Line Certificate (5) Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (6) Record of equipment for the cargo ship safety Radio Certificate form (R), etc. But the certificates found on the vessel viz., (1) International Tonnage Certificate (1969), (2) Cargo ship safety certificate (3) International Load Line Certificate (4) Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (5) Record of equipment for the cargo ship safety Radio Certificates issued by the International Register of Shipping (IRS) were not recognized by Indian Maritime Administration or IACS (International Association of Classification Society) as per Merchant Shipping Regulation of Entry into Ports Government Gazette GSR 311 (E) dated 20.04.2012. The Seaman Guard Ohio vesel owned by 'Advanfort Company', USA, was illegally anchoring at the territorial waters of India since 10.10.2013 and remained there till its interception by the Indian Coast Guard officials on 12.10.2013 at 03.30 hrs. The Captain, the first officer and the second officer of the vessel are legally bound to make a declaration of their arrival in territorial waters of India and possession of arms and ammunition to the Port Authorities, as per Director General of Shipping Circular NT/ISPS/Circular No.1 of 2011, but failed to carry out the same and contravened the provisions of Section 36 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶66

(x) On 10.10.2013 the Seaman Guard Ohio, a utility vessel owned by Advanfort Company, Washington District of Columba, USA which was registered at Sierra Leone country in West Africa, was anchoring in the territorial waters of India at the position 08052.0' North, 078026.7' East and remained there till its interception by the Coast Guard officials on 12.10.2013 at 03.30 hrs without any declaration of its entry and possession of arms and ammunition to the Port / Naval / Coastal authorities or to the nearest Port Marine Police Station of Thoothukudi as defined under section 36(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 and also in contravention of Direction General of Shipping circular NT/ISPS/Circular No.1 of 2011, without any proper documents for keeping them in the vessel and also for handing them and for such possession and carrying 35 firearms. Among them, 6 fire arms are in the nature of prohibited firearms as defined under Government of the Republic of India, in contravention of Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is punishable under section 25 (1A) of The Arms Act 1959 as amended by Act 25 of 1983 and Act 42 of 1988 and under Section 25 (1B) (a) r/w Section 3 of The Arms Act, 1959 and 25 (1B) (f) r/w. Section 10 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of other firearms.

¶67

¶68

(xi) Having knowledge of the said unauthorized entry of the vessel in the territorial waters of India, A38 to A45, dishonestly and unauthorisedly supplied and sold about 2,000 litres of High Speed Diesel to the ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' vessel on 11.10.2013, contravening the provisions of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998, under Order 2 (e) (vi) and in turn the employees of the vessel A3, A5, A6, A7 as per the directions of A1 and A2 dishonestly and unauthorisedly purchased the same in contravention of the said order under Order 2(e) (v), which are punishable under Section 7 (1)(a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶69

(xii) Thus, the accused A1 to A5, when the vessel ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' was in the territorial waters of India in the position 08052.0' North, 078026.7' East between 10.10.2013 and 12.10.2013 adjacent to Vilangusulli Island, Thoothukudi District at 3.8 Nautical Miles from the base line and earlier specifically in between first week of October 2013 and 12.10.2013 at Thoothukudi, Chennai, Dubai and other places agreed to do an act by illegal means and thus conspired to commit the offences such as conceal the possession of Arms and ammunition kept in the vessel without any document and without any declaration, when anchored the vessel ''M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio'' in the territorial waters of India, to the Port authorities or to the Indian Coast Guard authorities and others, illegally and unauthorisedly purchased High Speed Diesel from unauthorised persons A38 to A45, for the vessel ''Seaman Guard Ohio'' and thus the crew and guards of the vessel contravened the provisions of Sections 3, 7, 10, 33, 35, 36 (2) of the Arms Act, 1959 punishable under sections 25 (1-A), 25 (1B), (a) and 25 (1B) (f) of The Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 30 and also contravened the Order 2 (e) (v) and (vi) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices), Order 1998, punishable under Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and thus A1 to A45 did their best in carrying out, the said clandestine acts by abetting themselves with a view to achieving the common design of conspiracy and decided to do any other act, as per the needs of the situation, if warranted in future in achieving the common design of such conspiracy, as narrated and thereby, A1 to A45 have committed an offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120(B) IPC and 120(B) IPC r/w Section 33, 35 and 3 r/w Section 25 (1B) (a), Section 7 r/w 25 (1A), Section 10 r/w. Section 25 (1B) (f) of The Arms Act, 1959 and Rule 30 of The Arms Rules, 1962, Section 36(2) r/w Section 30 of The Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3 (2) (d) r/w 7 (1)(a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Order 2 (e) (v), (vi) of Motor Spirit and high Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998.

¶70

(xiii) In pursuance of the said conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction, the accused A1, A2, A3 and A4 were directly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ responsible for keeping the firearms at the vessel and A5 to A37 being the occupants in the vessel found in constructive, physical

¶71

¶72

and joint possession of 35 firearms, ammunition and magazines among them 6 prohibited HKG3 firearms as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of The Arms Act, 1959, bearing serial Nos.396870, E58118, 008847, 009366, 402401, 398368 kept under the joint control and in joint occupation without any valid document and authorization from the competent authority at the vessel ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' while anchoring in the territorial waters of India and when intercepted by Indian Coast Guard officials on 12.10.2013 at 03.30 hours. Further, they willfully failed to make declaration of the joint possession of such firearms to the concerned Authorities, as per Sections 35 and 36 of the Arms Act and in violation of the Director General of Shipping Circular NT/ISPS/Circular No.1 of 2011, and there by A1 to A37 have committed offences in contravention of Section 7 and section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959, punishable under section 25 (1A) of The Arms Act, 1959 since A1 and A2 are liable to be prosecuted for the said offence as they were responsible for the control over the possession of such prohibited firearms and the administration of ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' vessel and their employees, in which, these firearms were knowingly and dishonestly, allowed to be kept at the vessel by them without any authorization from the Competent Authority.

¶73

(xiv) The accused A1, A2, A3 and A4 were in the physical, constructive and joint possession of 29 non prohibited firearms, 5682 ammunition and 102 magazines in the vessel without any licence issued in accordance with the provisions of The Arms Act, 1959 or any other valid document for such possession along with A5 to A37, the other occupants of the said vessel, in contravention of Section 3, punishable under Section 25 (1B) (a) r/w Section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959 and thereby A1 and A2, who were having direct control over such firearms and A3 to A37, who were having joint control and constructive possession of such firearms, have committed an offence punishable under Section 25 (1B) (a) of The Arms Act, 1959, as they have contravened, Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶74

(xv) The accused A1, A2, A3 and A4 were in the physical, constructive and joint possession of 29 firearms, 5682 ammunition and 102 magazines at the said vessel along with A5 to A37, when it was in territorial waters of India and anchored there till its interception by Indian Coast Guard on 12.10.2013, without any valid licence issued in accordance with the provisions of The Arms Act, 1959 or any other valid document as narrated in charge II and III, for such possession and thereby, A1 to A37 have committed an offence in contravention of the Rule 30 of The Arms Rules, 1962 and under Sections 10 and 35 of The Arms Act, 1959 punishable under section 25 (1B) (f) of The Arms Act, 1959.

¶75

(xvi) The commission of the said offences committed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused A1, A2, A3 and A4 who were in the physical, constructive and joint possession of 6 prohibited firearms and 29 ordinary firearms,

¶76

¶77

5682 ammunition and 102 magazines at the said vessel, when it was in the territorial waters of India and anchored there as narrated in charge IV, without any license or authorization issued in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 or any other valid documents for such possession along with the accused A5 to A37, who were the employees and occupants of the said vessel ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'', willfully failed to inform the possession of such arms and ammunition by them to the officer of the nearest Police Station and thus A1 to A37 have committed an offence by contravening the provisions of Section 36 (2) of The Arms Act, 1959, punishable under section 30 of The Arms Act, 1959.

¶78

(xvii) The accused A3, A5, A6 and A7, who were employed as crew in the utility vessel ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' unauthorised and illegally purchased about 2,000 litres of high Speed Diesel on the advice of A1 / Advanfort Company and A2, its Operations Director, on the night of 11.10.2013, when the vessel was in the territorial waters of India and anchored there, from the unauthorized persons/accused A37 to A45 at the instigation, facilitation and directions of A1 / Advanfort Company represented by its Operations Director Mohamed Frajallah and A2 Mohamed Frajallah, the Company's Operations Director at U.S.A and thereby, A1, A2, A3, A5, A6 and A7 have committed an offence by contravening the provisions of the Order 2 (e) (v) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices), Order 1998 punishable under section 7(1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶79

(xviii) The accused A38 to A45 did their best in one way or other, illegally and unauthorizedly supplied about 2,000 litres of high speed diesel to the vessel "M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio" and sold the same to the vessel as narrated in charge VI with assistance of specifically A41, the Manager of A38, who received Rs.10,00,000/through HDFC Bank transactions from A43 of Chennai, to whom an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (40476 US $) was credited in the HDFC Bank Account, Chennai in Account No.50200000105782 by A1 Advanfort Company, USA for the purpose of purchase and supply of diesel and provisions to the M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio Vessel. From the said amount, Rs.10,00,000/- was credited in the bank account of A41 Account No.11041050004770 HDFC Bank, Thoothukudi, who had withdrawn Rs.7,00,000/- on 09.10.2013 and handed over the same to his Master A38. Further A38, who in turn, purchased about 2,000 litres of diesel in 10 barrels from M.V.S.Muthuvel & Sons Petrol Bunk, Ettayapuram Road, Thoothukudi and transported the same with the assistance of A42, A44, A45 to the fishing Harbour in his 'TATA Ace' vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN 69-AH-8457, on 11.10.2013 and from there it was loaded and transported by A39 and A45 in a fishing boat owned by the father of A39 and A40 and unauthorisedly and illegally supplied to the vessel M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio on the same night on 11.10.2013, which was anchored in the territorial waters of India https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and thereby A38 to A45, who are directly responsible in the said clandestine act of purchase, transport and delivery of diesel to the

¶80

¶81

vessel as narrated above and this A38 to A45 have committed an offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, since they contravened the provision of Order 2 (e) (vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998, which is punishable as narrated above.

¶82

(xix) After completion of the investigation based on spot inspection of the vessel and other places as disclosed by the accused persons during their interrogation, examination of witnesses, seizure of documents, arms and ammunition, various articles from the vessel and other places, opinion of statutory authorities on seized items, opinion of Public Prosecutor and sanction order obtained from Competent Authorities, for filing prosecution case under the Arms Act, a detailed charge sheet along with documents and other materials collected during investigation was filed by the Inspector of Police, Q branch, C.I.D against the accused on 30.12.2013, for the offences u/s 120(B) IPC , 33,35 & 3 r/w 25(1-B)(a), 7 r/w 25(1-A), 10 r/w 25(1-B)(f) of The Arms Act 1959, Rule 30 of the Arms Rule 1962, 36(2) r/w 30 of the Arms Act 1959 and Order 2(e)(v)(vi) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998 & 3(2)(d) r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Thoothukudi.

¶83

(xx) The case was taken on file against the accused as P.R.C No.1/2014 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 33, 35 and 3 r/w Section 25(1B)(a), Section 7 r/w 25 (1-A), Section 10 r/w Section 25 (1-B) (f) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Rule 30 of the Arms Rules, 1962, Section 36(2) read with Section 30 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2) (d) read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and order 2 (e)(v)(vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998 and Section 120-B of IPC and the Court took cognizance of the case and accordingly on 20.01.2014 issued non-bailable warrants against A1 Advanfort Company and A2 Mohamed Frajallah, Director Operations (who are the resident of USA, Washington) for their arrest and appearance in the Court in connection with the commission of above mentioned offences along with other accused named above.

¶84

However, two accused A1 and A2 are still not apprehended despite issuance of non-bailable warrants against them, which remain un-executed. So far as the other accused A3 to A45 are concerned, though they were arrested on different dates, some were enlarged on bail by the trial court and remaining by the High Court on different dates on terms imposed on them. The accused persons filed a Revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.204 of 2014, u/s 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the cognizance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi of the charge sheet seeking to prosecute A38 for commission of several offences

¶85

¶86

detailed therein. Sofar as A3 to A37 are concerned, they filed Crl.O.P. (MD) No.6719/2014, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein, they also sought quashing of the charge sheet filed seeking to prosecute them for commission of various offences, detailed above.

¶87

By a common order, the High Court partly allowed both the cases and quashed the charge sheet filed against all the accused persons insofar as it related to offences punishable under the Arms Act are concerned. However, uphold the filing of the charge sheet against A3 and A38 for their prosecution in relation to the offences punishable for violating the Control Order, 2005 punishable under Section 3 (ii) (d) read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, holding that prima facie case against these accused for commission of offence under the Essential Commodities Act is made out and hence, these accused persons have to face trial on merits insofar as the offences punishable under the said Act are concerned.

¶88

Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the State has filed an Appeal in Criminal Appeal Nos. 836 and 837 of 2015 by way of Special Leave petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Both the criminal appeals were allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and remanded the matter by setting aside the orders of this Court and issued direction to proceed with the case and decide the same on merits in accordance with law and also made it clear that to interpret Section 45 (a) of the Arms Act to enable the trial court to decide the rights of the parties and decide the case strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.

¶89

Initially, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi has taken on file as P.R.C.01/2014 against these accused and the accused Advanfort Company (A1) and Mohamed Frajallah, Operations Director, Advanfort Company, USA (A2). During the pendency of the said P.R.C case, A1 and A2 failed to appear before the Court and NBW was issued against them and, since NBW could not be executed, the case as against A1 and A2 was split up from this case PRC No. 01/2014 and taken on file as P.R.C. No.28/2015. Then the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi rearranged the accused in P.R.C. No.01/2014 as A1 to A43 and furnished copies of document relied on by the prosecution to all the accused and committed to this Court of Sessions u/s 209 (a) Cr.P.C on 07.08.2015, since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the same was taken on file as S.C No.262 of 2015, on 11.08.2015 and found a prima facie case as against the accused and accordingly, charges were framed u/s 120-B IPC, 25(1A), 25(1-B)(a) , 25(1-B)(f) &, 30 of the Arms Act 1959, and Order 2 (f)(v) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 19th December 2005 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 against A1, A3 to A5, u/s 120-B IPC, 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a) ,

¶90

¶91

25(1-B)(f) and 30 of the Arms Act 1959 against A2, A6 to A35 and under Order 2(f)(vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005, dated 19th December 2005 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 against A36 to A43, read over and explained to them. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

¶92

On the side of prosecution totally forty four witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 44, Exs.P.1 to 89 were marked and M.Os.1 to 10 were also marked. On the side of defence Exs.D1 to 72 were marked.

¶93

Mr.E.K.Nanda Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Dr.Thushara James and Mr.R.Anand, learned counsels, for A1 and A2 in Crl.A.No.41 of 2016; for A2, A19, A24 to A27 in Crl.A.No.43 of 2016 and for A12 to A18, A20-A23, A28, A29, A30, A33, A34, A29, A31, A32 and A35 and A27 in Crl.A.No.44 of 2016 would vehemently contend that on 12.10.2013, around 3.30 hours, the Indian Coast Guard intercepted a vessel “M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio”, which was anchored at Latitude 08⁰ .52' North and Longitude 078^° 26.7' East. The location is stated to be about 10.8 nautical miles from Vilangusulli Island, Thoothukudi District and 3.8 Nautical Miles promulgated by the Ministry a External Affairs Notification S0.1197(E), dated 11.05.2009. When questioned, the men in the vessel admitted that they were in possession of arms and that there were guards on the vessel. The Coast Guard Ship directed SG Ohio to weigh anchor and proceed to Tuticorin Port for further investigation by the Indian Authorities.

¶94

A Joint Interrogation Committee consisting of representatives of Indian Coast Guard, Customs, Intelligence Bureau, Police Department, Revenue Intelligence and other agencies was constituted and during interrogation it was found that the vessel had arms and ammunition on board. The master informed the Joint Interrogation Committee that the ship was engaged in anti-piracy operations and that it had run out of fuel and that they had received 10 drums of fuel from a fishing boat. The Chief Security Guard explained the method of embarkation / disembarkation of sentries as well as arms and ammunition from ports and armories. The arms came from UK and sentries and arms embarked/ disembarked on client vessels in terms of the schedule and instructions given by the Company. The Joint Interrogation Committee decided to conduct further investigation and the matter was initially entrusted to the Inspector of Police, Marine Police Station and investigation was later on transferred to the Q-Branch. The Police completed the investigation and a final report against 45 accused, as stated above.

¶95

Continuing further, the learned Senior Counsel would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submit that the questions framed by the Learned Judge and the grounds on which the findings are rendered by him are illegal. The

¶96

¶97

maritime jurisdiction of India is determined on the basis of its maritime zones, which are defined under The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976. Section 3 (1) provides that the sovereignty of India extends to its territorial waters. Sub clause (2) states that "the limit of the territorial waters is the line every point of which is at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline". International conventions and state practice reaffirms this definition in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS). Article 2(1) declares that sovereignty of a coastal state extends to the territorial sea. Article 3 empowers every state with the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention. Article 5 provides for drawing or charting the baseline. It states that except where otherwise provided in the Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low water line along the coast as marked on large scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. Article 7 provides for a deviation from this general rule and provides interalia in sub clause (1) that in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Thus it can be seen that in usual practice, the baselines are drawn along the low water line along the coast, and this is the reason why Captains of Ships anchor their vessels at 12 nautical miles or beyond calculated roughly from the shoreline or coastline, considering the same to be beyond the territorial waters of a coastal state. However, if the coastline is deeply indented or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the distance measured, with the reference point of low water line, will not be proper. This is for the reason that if measured so, the vessel may be anchored or plying at a distance of 12 nautical miles from coastline, but may well be very near or even ahead of or within an island in the vicinity. Hence, in such circumstances, the coastal states are empowered to draw baselines including the islands as reference points for measurement, so as to maintain a distance of 12 nautical miles from such islands as well. Ex.P5 is the baseline map relied upon by the prosecution. The charts of navigation or identification and drawing of baselines are to be done by the Hydrographer. Exhibit P5 has no legal basis. The prosecution is not competent to draw the baseline. They cannot, for themselves, plot an 'imaginary line' connecting different reference points, choosing the baseline method at their will. It can be done only in terms of the UNCLOS, Maritime Zones Act. While considering the question as to whether the ship was in territorial waters, the Court below totally misdirected itself and rendered a finding on the basis of assumptions. The learned Judge went wrong in observing that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the question whether the ship was within territorial waters was 'not disputed by the defence. When the defence side was consistently

¶98

¶99

disputing the case of the prosecution that the ship was within territorial waters, the learned Judge ought not to have casually overlooked the evidence adduced in this regard. It is therefore submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish and prove the fact that the ship was within territorial waters on the date of interception. Hence the finding of the court below in this -regard is illegal and unsustainable in law.

¶100

Adding further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the question whether the accused are entitled to claim the “Right of Innocent Passage” becomes relevant only in the event, the prosecution is able to establish that the ship was within territorial waters. Assuming, without admitting, that the ship was within territorial waters, the accused are entitled to the right of innocent passage. Insofar as the Right of Innocent Passage is concerned, the general rule is that every foreign vessel is entitled to the said right. It is only in cases where the ship is engaged in any of the activities prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the state that the right cannot be claimed. The burden is therefore on the prosecution to prove that the accused acted against the interest of the coastal state or that the passage was 'non innocent'. The provision cannot be compared to Section 105 of the Evidence Act, as wrongly observed by the Court below. While discussing the Innocent Passage, the court below has taken into account, irrelevant aspects, which have no bearing on rendering a finding on the issue. After entries in the GPS log book and the Deck log book are to be treated as "genuine" and that they are of "much importance". The learned trial Judge wrongly found that the accused have not proved that the vessel was in 'distress'. In order to claim the benefit of the right of innocent passage, it is not necessary that the vessel should be in distress. A vessel may also pass though territorial waters in the course of its voyage, even 5 when there is no 'distress'. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the vessel was in distress as she was running out of fuel. The entries evidencing this fact have not been correctly appreciated by the Court below. From Exhibit P20, Deck Log Book of the vessel, it can be seen that the vessel was anchored and awaiting instructions for provisions, stores and bunker. In shipping parlance, the word bunkering denotes refuelling. When a vessel is in need of fuel, it can only be presumed to be in distress. Hence the finding of the court below that there was no evidence to show that the vessel was in distress is incorrect, being contrary to the evidence adduced in this case.

¶101

If the prosecution do not plead and establish that the activities conducted on the ship is prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of India, the argument putforth by the prosecution is not valid. The trial Court has also not decided on this issue. On 23^rd August, 2013 the Ship was in Kochin and left on 26^th August. On 12.10.2013, the Ship was inspected, as per the Deck Log Book and the ship had anchored in outer port limit at 16.00 Hrs. 0.53 Min.83 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Seconds North; 78 Degrees; 26 Min; 26 Secs on East. On 29.08.2013 at 17.36 hrs, the ship left to Kochin. According to the

¶102

¶103

prosecution, the appellants declared that their next port is Maldives and therefore, they breached the innocent passage. It does not mean that the appellants have plotted out one navigation chart and they did not leave this line and go anywhere else.

¶104

On 09.09.2013, the vessel had anchored in outer port limit of Tuticorin and drifting. At 8.55 a.m., the Coast-guard conducted a routine enquiry. At 9.00 a.m., Coastguard boarding team boarded the vessel. Then, at 9.40 a.m., the Coast-guard boarding team left the vessel. Coast guard has come into the ship, inspected and found nothing abnormal and left. First of all, it is contrary to explanation to Article 4 of 1976 Act. As long as what the appellants are doing is safety of India, but not contrary. Therefore, the prosecution is only duty bound to prove by tangible evidence not mere apprehension or suspicion. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved that the ship was in territorial water of India and they were not proved that the Everest and Eliposid method and hence, the benefit must go to the accused. Even according to the prosecution, the Ship was in 3.8 Nautical Miles.

¶105

On 12.10.2013 the licence of the Ship was in force i.e., however, it expired, when the ship was in the police custody. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that it is a merchant ship and therefore, the prosecution is not entitled to take a stand that the ship was 25 years old and hence, it is not used for sailing in the sea. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to Ex.P.19, wherein it is stated that on 14.08.2016 at 10.00 a.m. 5 guards were boarded and 5 persons were disembarked. At 11.30 am., inspection was completed in the ship and also received boarding clearance certificate. He also referred to the log book stating that on 23.08.2016 at 16.45 hours, the vessel was proceeding to port, on 24.08.2016 at 10.30 am two persons from Intelligent Bureau were on board and on 29.08.2016 at 17.06 hours pilot of the Ship was on vessel and pilot left the ship at 17.36 and from 23.08.2016 to 29.08.2016 the ship was there. It is further submitted that guns were found in a room at the ship and not in the hands of the guard, who were in the ship and hence, the international protocol have been completely followed. The trial Court on suspicion alone convicted the appellants.

¶106

The applicability of Arms Act is concerned, when once it is established that the appellants are entitled to the right of innocent passage, nothing more needs to be proved. However, the said right has been denied solely on the ground that Ex.P63 / Guidelines, dated 28-09-2011 and P.64/Regulations, dated 25-05-2012 have been violated. Ex.P63 / Circular contains "Guidelines on Deployment of Armed security guards On Merchant Ships". The Guidelines recognise the fact that the menace of piracy continues unabated and that there are many ship owners deploying security guards on their ships while transiting piracy infested waters of Gulf Of Aden and Arabian sea. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is stated therein that the matter was deliberated at length in the Ministry of Shipping and that it was decided that ship owners may deploy armed security guards in pursuance of provisions of the

¶107

¶108

Customs Act, 1962 and Section 45 (a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. In other words, ships carrying armed security guards are entitled to the protection of Section 45 (a) which states among other things that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to "Arms or ammunition onboard any sea going vessel or any aircraft and forming part of the ordinary armament or equipment of such vessel or aircraft".

¶109

The plea of the accused that Section 45(a) of the Arms Act would apply in the present case and that no prosecution will lie for violation of provisions of the Act has been rejected by the trial court on erroneous grounds. It is the contention of the accused that the vessel in question is one that is engaged in anti piracy operations. Exhibit D.65, which is also a part of Exhibit P10 series documents is the Certificate of Registration issued by the Republic of Sierra Leone (Flag State), which is accepted by the prosecution . The said document shows that the vessel is registered as a 'utility boat'. It is not a cargo carrier or an oil tanker or a passenger vessel. It is used for carrying security guards with arms for deployment to merchant vessels plying through piracy infested areas. The entries in Exhibit P19 log book made on 30-09-2013, 0410-2013, 05-10-2013, 06-10-2013, 07-10-2013 and 09-10-2013 would show that armed security guards embarked and disembarked the vessel on a regular basis. This has been admitted by PW 2 with reference to the log books when he states that he does not dispute that guards embarked and disembarked from other ships. There are several other entries in the log books to show that guards embarked and disembarked on various dates. The learned trial Judge has also found that the vessel is engaged in supplying armed guards to other ships. However, the protection of Section 45 (a) has been denied on the ground that the procedure prescribed by the guidelines have not been followed. Again, the learned Judge admits that the business of 5 the company is to protect commercial cargo ships from the attack of piracy, on high risk areas. However the Learned Judge observes that since it is in no way beneficial to the coastal state, the protection of Section 45 (a) cannot be claimed. The said finding is totally erroneous and unsustainable as the learned Judge has imposed additional conditions in order to claim the protection of Section 45 (a). It is submitted that even when merchant ships carrying guards with arms are entitled to claim exemption under Section 45 (a) , as they form "part of the ordinary armament or equipment of such vessel", the said right cannot be denied to a vessel engaged in supplying armed guards to such vessels. The vessel herein is a utility boat engaged in anti-piracy operations and for its business the arms carried by her form part of the ordinary armament of the vessel.

¶110

¶111

Coming to Exhibit P63 / Guidelines, while they continue to remain only as guidelines, which do not have any statutory force, the relevant clauses (7.3, 7.5 and 7.6) apply only to merchant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vessels visiting Indian Ports. Though the vessel was in possession of details regarding arms, the requirement of providing information

¶112

¶113

to the jurisdictional port authority arises only if the vessel intends to visit the 'port'. In the present case the vessel had no intention to visit the Indian port and hence the question of complying with the guidelines does not arise. In any view of the matter, that is no reason to deny the accused the protection of Section 45 (a) of the Act. It may also be mentioned that when the vessel visited the port of Cochin on 24-08-2013, no allegation regarding non-compliance of Guidelines or Regulations were raised and the ship was cleared to sail off. Again, when the ship was on the outer port limits of Tuticorin with arms and guards onboard, on 14-08-2013, it was intercepted by the Indian Coast Guard, records and documents relating to ship and arms were inspected and boarding clearance was issued.

¶114

Yet another reason for denying the accused the right of innocent passage and the protection of Section 45 (a) of the Arms Act is that the vessel did not comply with Exhibit P64 Rules. Exhibit P64 Rules namely, "Merchant Shipping (Regulation of Entry of Ships into Ports, Anchorages and Offshore Facilities) Rules 2012" are issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 457 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. This is clear on a reading of the charge wherein it is stated that the ship is not in possession of 5 certificates recognised by the Indian Administration of IACS (International Association of Classification Societies). While the certificate of registration is not disputed, the other certificates are said to be not in conformity with the Rules.

¶115

It is submitted in this connection that the Rules in question apply only to vessels calling on ports, anchorages and offshore facilities. The accused had no intention to call on any port at the relevant time. Apart from this, it was in possession of certificates required. Further, under the Rules, in case of instances of non-compliance, the action contemplated is that the matter shall be reported to the Director General, Shipping . In the present case, the matter was not reported to the DG Shipping. Instead, the prosecution assumed for itself jurisdiction to initiate action for violation of the provisions of the Act. The DG Shipping was not at any stage involved in the proceedings leading to the filing of the charges heet. It is also significant to note that under the provisions of the MS Act, violation of any of the provisions of the Rules above mentioned would only entail a punishment of Rs. 1000/-. Therefore, the findings of the trial judge regarding the applicability/ non applicability of the Arms Act are illegal and unsustainable. It is submitted that the accused are entitled to the exemption provided under Section 45 (a) of the Arms Act and hence they cannot be charged for any offences listed therein.

¶116

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. Admittedly, out of the total number of arms which were seized from the vessel, items 16-21 alone were alleged to be

¶117

¶118

prohibited arms. The expression' prohibited arms' has been defined to mean " firearms so designed or adapted that, ([pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged, until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty". In other words, the weapon should be such that if pressure is applied once, missiles continue to be discharged until the pressure is removed. The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution to show that the arms in question are prohibited arms is the report of the Ballistic Expert / Ex. P62. The Ballistic Expert was examined as PW 38. In cross examination, he states that "firearms sample No 16-21 has-3 operation modes , namely, S-modemeaning safety mode; E-mode- meaning Semi automatic mode and F- mode, meaning automatic mode". He goes on to state "It is correct to say that of this F -mode is banned internationally and hence the manufacturers of the guns themselves made it dummy mode". The said statement was made when the weapon was handed over to the witness during the course of his evidence and was inspected by him. He further stated that the mode is banned for all the samples 16-21. He also stated that the said weapons had a bullet capacity of 20 and that he used 1 bullet to test fire the weapons in each of the 6 guns to test the E-mode. He further stated that it would not operate if more than 1 bullet is used for test firing. Finally, he stated as follows: "It is correct to say that all the 6 weapons are semi automatic". W hen the expert witness himself states that the weapons in question are semi automatic, no further proof is required. He has categorically stated that F mode which is the automatic mode, is banned internationally and that the manufacturers themselves made it dummy mode. Hence, the only witness who is competent to give evidence on the type of weapon has clarified his report by stating that the weapons in question are all semi automatic. It cannot therefore be contended that the weapons are prohibited arms and that possessing the same is an offence under Section 7. When the contention was raised that the weapons are not prohibited arms, the learned trial Judge casually brushed aside the same. When the expert himself says that the manufacturer has made it in dummy mode, meaning in operational, the learned trial Judge has found that it has automatic mode.

¶119

Relying on Article 3 of the Constitution of India, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as per the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the territorial sea limit was extended from 3 Nautical Miles to 12 Nautical Miles. So, for the first time, the Law to that effects was enacted by the Parliament and prior to that it was only Presidential Proclamation, which is contrary to Article 3. Therefore, the Police power could not be extended beyond the 3 Nautical Miles and the Central Government alone has the power. If there is no assumption or presumption or proof with regard to the fact that the ship was within the territorial water, then the trial must only have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ done by the Special Court Constituted by the Union of India and based on which, the conviction cannot be stand.

¶120

¶121

The learned Senior Counsel, inviting the attention of this Court to a Full Bench Judgment of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh reported in (2009 (3) RCR (Cri) 213) would submit that the question as to what is a prohibited arm, was considered by the Punjab & Haryana. In that case, the Court examined the question whether a point 303 Rifle would fall within the meaning of prohibited arm. It was held that an arm can be treated as a prohibited arm only if it can be said to be so designed or adapted that when pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed. The court noted that once bolted, the pressure to the trigger would result in discharge of only one missile and that no amount of continued pressure can result in discharge of another missile. The same is the case herein. As mentioned earlier, the weapons in question were such that application of pressure would result in only one missile being discharged. No further proof of this is required than the evidence of the ballistic expert himself.

¶122

Further, the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to a Judgment of High Court of Bombay in Guljar Singh & Ors v. The State of Maharashtra , (1976 Cri LLJ 205) , wherein the it has been held that mere visual examination may be a poor substitute and that prosecution is bound to establish that the article that is seized and brought before court is a weapon within the meaning of the definition. In the Judgment in Bhikhubhai Velijbhai Lodhari v. State of Gujarat reported in (2010 SCC Online GUJ 470) , the High Court of Gujarat held that " It can thus be seen that prohibited arms and semi automatic arms are different kinds of weapons so recognised by the Act and the Rules made thereunder." But, in the present case, when the ballistic expert himself states that the weapons are all semi automatic, the trial Court ought not to have classified it as a prohibited weapon.

¶123

In G vasuddin Khan v State of Bihar reported in (2003 (12) SCC 516) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that evidence has to be provided by the prosecution to establish that the arm is a prohibited arm. In State of Punjab v Jarnail Singh , (2011 SCC Online P & H 4141) , the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gvasuddin Khan (supra) held that there should be independent evidence and corroborative material to clinch the point that a prohibited weapon was used by the accused. In that case, it was held that none of the witnesses examined deposed that the weapon used was a fully automatic weapon capable of discharging missiles continuously until pressure was removed from the trigger. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the weapons in question fall within the definition of a prohibited arm.

¶124

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 25. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, as far as an offence under Section 3 of the Act is concerned, it states that no person shall acquire, or have in his possession,

¶125

¶126

firearm unless he holds a valid license issued under the provisions of the Act. Section 39 mandates that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. The sanction that is contemplated is not a mere formality. It is absolutely essential that the authority giving the sanction should consider the material produced, before coming to a conclusion that prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned. A reading of the sanction order would show that the sanctioning authority has not applied his, mind while granting sanction. The records were evidently not perused by him. Being the sanctioning authority, he ought to have first inquired whether the provisions of the Act would apply. It is only when he comes to the conclusion that the Act applies, he gets jurisdiction to accord sanction. The authority has merely noted that the vessel was in territorial waters at the time of interception. In his cross examination, he stated that he granted sanction based on statements of witnesses and documents in CD file. He further stated that the navigation chart of the vessel was not part of the record and that it was not shown to him. He also stated that he is aware of UNCLOS and that India and Sierra Leone are signatories to the Convention. He also states that the ship is a utility vessel. With respect to the offence under section 10 of the Act, it is submitted that the said Section applies only when a person "brings into or takes out of India by sea" any arms or ammunition without a license. In the present case, the accused did not bring any arms into the territorial waters and at any rate, had no intention of bringing into the country such arms. The provisions of the Act will not apply as the arms form part of the ordinary armament of the vessel. The vessel was engaged in anti piracy operations, that it is entitled to the right of innocent passage and at any rate, the provisions of the Arms Act, will not apply. The documents relied upon by the prosecution itself would show the nature of operation of the ship. All the relevant records relating to the ship, arms and antecedents of the security guards and crew were also available onboard. All the security guards and crew onboard the ship are persons with clean professional record, many of them having served their country as military personnel. In such circumstances, the prosecution ought not to have initiated proceedings against them for alleged violation of the Arms Act. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants and the acquittal of the appellants.

¶127

Mr.T.Mohan, Advocate for Mr.P. Muthusamy, Advocate for the Appellants / Accused Nos.A1, A3 to A11 in Crl.A(MD)No.41 of 2016 and the Appellants / Accused Nos.A12 to A18, A20 to A23 and A28 to A35 in Crl.A(MD)No.44 of 2016 would submit that, according to the prosecution, on 11.2.2013, the Indian Coast Guard at Tuticorin intercepted a vessel named ''MV Seaman Guard Ohio'' with arms, ammunition and guards within the Indian territorial waters. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vessel was brought to Tuticorin port and on investigation and collection of evidences, the following charges were framed:-

¶128

¶129

The 1st Charge as against A1-A35 under S.120-B of the Indian Penal Code; the 2nd Charge as against A1-A35 under S 25(1-A) of The Arms Act,1959; the 3rd Charge as against A1-A35 under S25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act,1959; the 4th Charge as against A1-A35 under S25(1-B)(f) of the Arms Act, 1959; the 5th Charge as against A1-A35 under S.30 r/w S.36(2) of the Arms Act,1959; Charge as against A1 and A3 to A5 Order 2(f)(v) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005 r/w 7(1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the Charge as against A36-A43 under 57(1)(a)(ii) Order 2(f)(v) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005 r/w 7(1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955.

¶130

The trial Court, after trial, on 11.01.2016, has given findings that A1-A35 are not guilty under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 36(2) r/w S.30 of the Arms Act,1959. (ii) A1, A3, A4 and A5 are found not guilty under Order 2(f)(v) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005 r/w 7(1) (a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955. (iii) A36-A43 are found not guilty under Order 2(f)(vi) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005. A1-A35 are found guilty under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959, Under Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act:1959 and Under Section 25(1-B) (f) of the Arms Act,1959.

¶131

Adding further, he would submit that the state marine Police has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case, since the penal section contemplated under Sec.15(3) of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 makes it clear that a prosecution is only within the cognizance of the Central Government and not that of the State. Thus, only when an offence is committed within the internal waters, the State Government may have jurisdiction to initiate prosecution. Further, the prosecution has misinterpreted the word "Coastal State" as the state of Tamil Nadu and the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act 1976. This Act clearly states the Central Government alone has jurisdiction to try this type of case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Republic of Italy and Others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2013 (4) SCC 721) .

¶132

He would further contend that the case of the prosecution is not maintainable and it is abnitio void , since the vessel 'Seman Guard Ohio' was found in the international waters and the same has been substantiated, when it was intercepted by the Coastal Guard https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vessel through Exhibited documents and cross examination of witnesses. Hence, section 14 of the Territorial Waters, Continental

¶133

¶134

Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 comes into operation. Thus, on the dispute whether the vessel was found in the territorial waters or international waters, the prosecution by itself has become void even without an examination of the exhibits and evidence before the trial court. Further, learned counsel would submit that, when the vessel is proved to be in the international waters or in the territorial waters, Section 33 of the Arms Act as well as Section 35 of the Arms Act referred to in the final report has no application at all in view of The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and the United Nation Convention of Law of Seas (UNCLOS)and this vessel could not be said to have violated the norms prescribed, in Section 33 or Section 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶135

The next charge of Section 25(1A), as defined in Section 7 of the Arms Act is not maintainable, as all the weapons are not prohibited weapons, as could be seen from Ex.D66, Advanfort company profile and the categorical admission of PW38, Mr.Baskar, the Ballistic Expert, in his cross-examination stating that all the weapons are semi-automatic and he has also given opinion after demonstration before the Court by operating the weapons. Yet another charge in the Final Report is Section 10 r/w.Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, is not apply in this case because the vessel by itself was proved to be an antipiracy vessel, as per the evidence of the witnesses PW.2 etc., and Ex.D66, where it has been specifically stated that "effective antipiracy watch".

¶136

Continuing further, the learned counsel would submit that 'M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio', owned by Advanfort Company is registered with the Republic of Sierra Leone, an East African Country, a flag state and the vessel is a flag vessel, subject to the Floating Island Theory. The Arms Act cannot be extended to the flag ship, as it was anchored in the sea, under exemption of Section 45(a) of Arms Act. The ship ran out of provisions and fuel and anchored out of necessary and it was 'drifting', as per records and evidence. The ship had no 'intention' to enter the territorial waters of India at any point of time. " mensrea " is an essential element to be proved in a criminal case. Admittedly, the vessel is an 'antipiracy vessel' and certified as 'utility boat'. The vessel is neither a passenger ship, nor a merchant ship, nor a cargo ship, nor a war ship, nor a submarine, nor a vessel working for a Nation inimical to India. Sierra Leone and India are parties to UNCLOS, 1982 and Article 27 of the said convention, the provisions of Arms Act, cannot be extended on board the flag ship and it is not alleged to have committed any of the violations enumerated in Article 27(1)(a) to (d) of the convention. The vessel did not indulge in any threat, or case of force against the security and territorial integrity of India; did not exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; did not aim at collection of information prejudicial to the defence of security of India; did not indulge in any sort of propaganda affecting the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defence or security in India; did not launch or land or board any military device; did neither load nor unload any commodity or

¶137

¶138

currency contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of India; did not indulge in wilful act of serious pollution; did not indulge in fishing activity; did not engage in research or survey activity; did not act aiming of interfering with any system of communication or other facilities or installations of India and no other activity not having direct bearing or antithetical to innocent passage. The Ship never attempted to flee and obeyed the Coast Guard command. He also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the ship was in territorial waters and the investigation in this case is tainted, perfunctory and illegal and prejudicial to the accused. The Inspector of Police registered an FIR without visiting the spot or getting any personal knowledge about he incident, as contemplated under Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C., The I.O. has failed to look into the amendment of "Everest spheroid"in to "Everest Ellipsoid" method of calculating the sea boundaries.

¶139

He also submitted that the trial Court has committed several serious error, while convicting the accused. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 in its proper perspective and failed to render a proper finding whether the Arms Act would applicable at all to a ship merely transiting through International/territorial waters (assuming without admitting the claim of the prosecution). The trial Court holding that Ex.P5 which showed the baseline using the then prevalent ''Everest Spheriod Method'' continued to be valid even in 2009 disregarding the statutory change of using the ''Everest Ellipsoid Method'' effected in 2009 on the wrong assumption that there could not be any major change in longitude and latitude in two years; Holding that it was the accused who had to discharge the burden of proving innocent passage again ignoring the fact that all passage is deemed innocent unless the vessel indulges in one of specified activities, the burden of proving which lies on the prosecution and not the defence; By misdirecting itself and holding tat the republic of Sierra Leone had not authorized 'M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio' as a ship or vessel; By holding that a claim of innocent passage is incompatible with entry into Indian waters; by holding that moment of the vessel is suspicious only on the wrong assumption that refueling required intimation to the nearest port.

¶140

Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel, for Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel on record, for Appellants / Accused A16 to A19 in Crl.A.No.44/2016 would submit the same contentions, as put forth by the counsels for the appellants in Crl.A.(MD)Nos.41, 42 and 44 of 2016 and he also adopt the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants in the above Criminal Appeals.

¶141

The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent in all Criminal Appeals would submit that on reliable information, the Indian Coast Guard Ship "Naikidevi" intercepted

¶142

¶143

the suspected vessel "M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio" on 12.10.2013 a.m., The Vessel was found drifting at position 08:52:04N and 078 Deg 26.44 E. The Vessel was escorted to Tuticorin Harbour. During the Joint interrogation, it was found that the Vessel was currying Arms and Ammunition without any authorisation. Further, the Vessel has received fuel illegally from a fishing boat on 11.10.2013. All the 35 accused were in the vessel and A1 was captain of the Vessel and others were its crew members.

¶144

He would further submit that Charge Sheet was filed against 45 accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi on 30.12.2013 and R.C.No.01/2014 was assigned on 02.01.2014. In the meantime, A3 to A37 filed a petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6179 of 2014 before this Court, praying to quash the final report in P.R.C.No.01 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Thoothukudi. Further, A38 filed a Revision in Crl.R.C(MD)No.204 of 2014 before this Court, challenging the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi in P.R.C.No.01 of 2014. This Court vide a common order, dated 10.07.2014, partly allowed the Criminal Original Petition and the Revision and quashed the Arms Act, 1959 and further held that Accused A38 / Maria Anton Vijay will be liable for the prosecution for violating the Control Order, 2005 and the Accused A3 / Dudnik Valentyn, the Caption of the Ship will be liable for abetment of the offence committed by A-38 under the Essential Commodities Act, within the Indian territorial waters. Against which, the State filed SLPs in SLP(Crl)Nos.7082 and 7099 of 2014, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petitions and set aside the common order, dated 10.07.2014.

¶145

Adding further, he would submit that the learned Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, after conducting an elaborate trial, vide its Judgment, dated 11.01.2016, convicted the accused A1 to A35 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959; to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each, for the offence under Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months each, for the offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. Further, the trial Court acquitted the accused A1, A3, A4, A5, A36 to A43 from the charges under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As per the Judgment 12 Indian National accused ie., A4 to A11, A29, A31, A32 and A35 are lodged in Central Prison, Palayamkottai and 23 Foreign National accused ie., A1 to a3, A12 to A28, A30, A33 and A34 are lodged in Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai.

¶146

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶147

¶148

The learned State Public Prosecutor, inviting the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in reported in (2013 (4) SCC 721) (cited supra) , wherein it has been held that, "When the incident happens within 12 Nautical Mile of Indian Territorial Waters, the local Court and local Police have jurisdiction to prosecute the offender, who have committed trespass into the territorial waters of India. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that, as a Sovereign Country, India is having control over 12 Nautical Mile as territorial waters of India, 24 Nautical Miles, as Contiguous Zones and further the Indian jurisdiction extends to 200 Nautical Miles as Exclusive Economic Zone', and would submit that the vessel in question was found within 3.8 Nautical Mile from the baseline and that fact was established through the Prosecution Witnesses 1, 2 and 3, the Coast Guard Authorities and the eye witnesses of the prosecution. Further, the same fact was established by Map, Deck Log Book and GPS Log Book maintained in the vessel itself. Further, P.W.14 has also established this fact.

¶149

He would further submit that the seized weapons are coming under prohibited firearms and ammunitions. This was established through P.W.38 / Tr.Baskar and according to him, out of 35 Firearms, 6 are prohibited one. Once it is manufactured as prohibited firearms and can be used as prohibited firearms will not lose its character by temporary suspension technique used in the firearms and it can be at any time enabled and used as prohibited firearms. The temporary suspension of that mechanism cannot erase the character of the prohibited firearms. Even though those weapons were disabled, the end user certificate mentions it only as automatic weapon and not as semi-automatic weapon. Ex.D64 series, Photo copies of some documents are produced claiming that the documents are licences for possessing the arms and ammunition. However, those documents do not contain the name of Advanfort Company and the weapons noted in those documents belong to the Government of Republic of Djibouti. Without any document to prove that there is an approval or recognition by that Government for supplying the weapons noted in that documents to the 'Advanfort Company', it cannot be come to a conclusion that the arms and ammunition recovered from the vessel were possessed with valid licence. Hence, the contention of the accused that all the there is a valid licence for the arms cannot be accepted.

¶150

He also submitted that on 12.10.2013, when the vessel was intercepted, arms and ammunition were available and when the same was questioned, there was no explanation from the accused. The vessel was certified as utility Boat when the utility boat was used as a carrier of huge quantity of weapons, then, necessary licence ought to have been obtained. Therefore, no exemption can be claimed under Section 45(a) of Arms Act. As per said Section, the Arms / ammunition on board should form part of the ordinary armament or equipment of such vessel / aircraft. In this case, arms / https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ammunition are not attached to the vessel. He would further contends that P.W.41 / the District Collector, Thoothukudi, is the

¶151

¶152

sanctioning authority, who granted sanction, Ex.P.67, for the institution of prosecution against split up accused A1 and A2, A3 o A37, who are responsible for physical and joined possessions of arms and ammunition in the vessel for the commission of offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) r/w. Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he is the competent sanctioning authority. Section 2(1)(d) is clearly mentioned 'District Magistrate in relation to any area for which a Commissioner of Police has been appointed, means the Commissioner of Police thereof and includes any such Deputy Commissioner of Police, exercising jurisdiction over the whole or any part of such area, as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf in relation to such area or parts. 'Therefore, in relation to any area for which a Commissioner of Police has been appointed, he alone has the power of 'District Magistrate'. If the State Government specified such jurisdiction on any Deputy Commissioner of Police in relation to such area / part, then he will be the District Magistrate. In all the area for which no Commissioner of Police / Deputy Commissioner of Police, has been appointed, then the District Collector is the District Magistrate.

¶153

The learned Special Public Prosecutor, in support of his contention, drew the attention of this Court by relying on the Corrigendum, dated 20.11.2009, wherein it has been observed that “It is necessary in the public interest hereby makes the following amendments in the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 11^th May 2009. He also contended that as per Government Order, the Everest Spheroid shall be replaced by Indian Geodetic Datum i.e Everest Ellipsoid. Hence, the spheroid system is an approximate and Ellipsoid is an accurate one, as per the Corrigendum, dated 20.11.2009. In view of the above, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no change in Ellipsoid and Spheroid. He also drew the attention of this Court at Page No.17, in the Corrigendum dated 20^th November 2009 at Ex.P1 and the relevant portion is extracted as under:-

¶154

“Except the amendment as detailed above the contents of the above said Gazette notification May 2011 remains unchanged.”

¶155

He would further contend that Article 297 of Constitution of India was elaborately discussed in Italian case (cited supra). There was a discussion with regard to 12 nautical miles is the area and if any occurrence happened within that distance, the Police has got power to take cognizance under IPC and Cr.P.C. He further submitted that when the appellants ship entered into the Indian territorial water, they should intimate the portal authorities and without doing the same, they contacted lay men and obtained diesel and other provisions. Further, the possession of the arms by the appellants will be used only by the Military and further it can be carried easily and no Licence available for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ possessing the arms in the Ship.

¶156

¶157

At this juncture, by way of reply, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that when the State has all the resources in its command, the shortage in the quality of the prosecution, should not make the appellants for conviction. Therefore, it is clear that if the prosecution has not done properly, the benefit should go to the accused.

¶158

He would further submit that there is a mention in column 3 of Ex.D64, License for 18 Arms, showing the Expiry date as 30.12.2013. He also referred Column No.8, showing as Country of Origin as Russia and column No.19 showing as protection against piracy. He also submitted that the date of expiry is not the date of expiry of the licence. It is the date of authorisation to bring the fir arms into the country. He submitted that at page No.255, Column No. 8, showing as Country of Origin as Belgium. In Column No.9, Country of consignment as 'Malta' and final destination is Malta. He submitted that in a country of origin if possessing of fire arms in the ship does not require licence and does not require licence in the Flag State.

¶159

I have heard the submissions made on either side at length. I have perused the materials, on which my attention was drawn and I have also considered the case laws relied upon by either side.

¶160

M.V.Seamon Guard Ohio an Utility vessel owned by Advantfort company, Washington D.C of Columbia, USA, which was registered in Sierra Leone in West Africa. A1 is the captain of vessel, who is having general control over the vessel; A2 is the Tactical Deployment Officer, who is incharge of the armed guns; A3 is the Chief Engineer in the vessel; A4 is the chief officer in charge of maintaining Deck Log Book; A5 is the incharge of maintaining Deck Log Book; A6 is the 3^rd officer assisting in the operation of the vessel. A7 is the crew members; A8 is working as Oiler; A9 & 10 are the Assisting Deck Officers; A11 is the Chief Cook; A12, A14, A15, A17, A19, A20, A22, A23, A25, A26, A27, A29, A31, A32, A34 and A35 are the Security Guards. A13, A16, A18, A21, A24, A28, 30 and A33 are the Team Leaders / Security Guards. A1 to A35 are Crew Members and Security Guards, who were boarded in the vessel while intercepted by the Indian Coastguard Authorities on 12.10.2013 at 3.30 Hrs early morning. Out of 35 accused / appellants, 12 appellants are Indians and remaining appellants are foreigners.

¶161

According to the prosecution, the location of the vessel in question while intercepted by the India Coastguard was found in Indian sea water at 10.8 Nautical Miles from Vilangusuzhi Island and 3.8 Nautical Miles away from the baseline promulgated by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ministry of External Affairs Government of India Notification (Ex.P1). The first point is to be decided in these Appeals is whether the location of the vessel which while intercepted by the

¶162

¶163

Indian Coastguard is within the Indian Territorial water or in International water?

¶164

The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 Coastguard and P.W.14 / Radiographer and also the Map, Deck Log Book and GPS Log Book maintaining the vessel for providing the fact that the location of the vessel is within the territorial water at the time of interception. Hence, it is a matter of fact to be proved by evidence in this case. As per the entries found in Ex.P20 Log Book for the period from 09.10.2013 to 17.10.2013, the vessel was anchored on 10.10.2013 at 14.30 Hrs in position at Latitude 08^O 52.0 North, Longitude 078^O 26.7 Éast till 12.10.2013 at 3.30 Hrs. At about 07.25 Hrs received permission from Indian Coastguard to enter into Indian water and the vessel is underway following the instructions from the Indian Coastguard. Prosecution has admitted that the vessel, which has been anchored was intercepted by the coastguard on 12.10.2013 at 3.30 Hrs. Such entries are corroborated in Ex.P.21 GPS Log Book. Those entries found in the Log Books maintained in the vessel and seized from the vessel also proves the fact that the vessel was anchored from prior to 7.25 Hrs on 12.10.2013 in the outer port limit of Thoothukudi and awaiting for provisional stores and bunkering (filling fuel).

¶165

The prosecution and the trial Court relies Ex.P5 Map for showing that the location of vessel is within the territorial water limits of India. P.W.43 / Investigating Officer has admitted during his evidence that Ex.P5 / Map was Published in the year 2007 and it was not amended replacing the measurement Spheroid by Elipsoide, as per the amendment, dated 20.11.2009 (Ex.P1). He has further submitted that the baseline and the location of the vessel was drawn by one Rajesh at Indian Coastguard. The said Coastguard was not examined to prove the contents of the Ex.P5 / Map by the prosecution. He has further deposed that Jetty Light House and Pandian Light House are one and the same and base line was not drawn from the said Pandian Light House. Nothing is found in Ex.P4 / Joint Interrogation Minutes and Ex.P2 / Complaint that the vessel was found at the time of interception by the Coastguard. On 12.10.2013 at 3.30 Hrs anchored within the territorial water limits of India. P.W.43 / I.O. has also participated in the Joint Interrogation Committee and deposed that, as per the Joint Interrogation Report / Ex.P4, the vessel was intercepted at 15 Nautical Miles from Tuticorin Port and nothing is mentioned about the coastal point, latitude and longitude and as per Ex.P68 / FIR it has been stated that occurrence place was at about 19.00 Nautical miles in the Northeast from the Tharuvaikulam seashore.

¶166

He has further admitted that the vessel was found on 10.10.2013 and 11.10.2013 in outer port limit, as per the Log Book seized from the vessel. It is further admitted that the Navigation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chart is also one of the document to find out the location of the vessel at a particular time and date. P.W.2 has deposed that every vessel is having Navigation Chart and the disputed vessel is also

¶167

¶168

having Navigation chart, but he has not seen it, since it is not required. The prosecution has not proved in its evidence that the vessel found anchoring within the territorial water limits of India. The base line drawn in Ex.P5 / Map is also not proved by the competent person and also it was drawn in terms of UNCLOS and Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The entries found in the Log Book seized from the vessel and produced by the prosecution also proves the fact that the vessel anchored on 12.10.2013 at 3.30 Hrs till 7.25 Hrs was not in the territorial water limits of India. The Navigating Chart of the disputed vessel is also not produced by the prosecution.

¶169

Ex.P1 does not speak about the Pandian Light House and it speaks about only Jetty Light House. Prosecution relies Ex.P5 / Map, which is of the year 2007, the basis for the vessel is within the territorial water limit. If Ex.P5 / Map is not drawn in accordance with Ex.P1, then, no conclusion as to location can be drawn based on improperly prepared plan. Even if it is taking into account as if the mode of measurement from Elipsoid to Spheroid is not changed, as per the entries found in Ex.P21, dated 12.10.2013, permission was accorded from the Indian Coastguard at 7.25 Hrs to enter into the Indian water and hence, till such time, the ship was not within the Indian water. The Investigating Officer has also deposed that the outer port limit is the International water and he has not verified the Latitude and Longitude given in respect of the alleged location of the ship. The prosecution has failed to produce the map which was prepared by the Naval Hydrographer before the trial Court, since the Map is of the year 2007, at the time Jetty Light House was no reference point and the Map drawn after 2009 is not produced for the best reasons known to them.

¶170

As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants the prosecution could not conclusively determined the position of the Ship at the time of its interception that; Ex.P5 Map has no legal basis and there is no evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to show that the Map produced as Ex.P5 is the one published under Section 10 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and the prosecution has not competent to draw the base line imaginarily connecting different points choosing the baseline method at their will and it can be done only in terms of UNCLOS, Maritime Zones Act and also Ex.P1 / Notification by the Office of the Hydrographer.

¶171

Considering the question as to whether the Ship was international water or in territorial water, the trial Court totally misdirected itself and rendered a finding on the basis of the assumption when the defence was continuously disputing the case of the prosecution that the Ship was within the territorial waters and hence, the findings of the trial Court in this regard is not sustainable in law. The prosecution cannot for themselves plotton https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imaginary lines connecting different reference points choosing the baseline method at their will and it can be done only in terms of

¶172

¶173

UNCLOS, Maritime Zones Act and Ex.P1 Notification by the Office of the Hydrographer. P.W.14 / Radiographer has also not deposed about the location of Ship during his evidence. P.W.14 has not specifically stated that on what basis the vessel was within the Indian territorial water limits. He has also stated that he has seen the Navigation Chart found in the vessel, when he inspected the said vessel, but the said Navigation Chart was not produced by the prosecution for fixing the location of the Ship within the territorial water limits.

¶174

From the above facts and circumstances and also the evidence produced by the prosecution, this Court comes to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the disputed vessel was anchored within the territorial water limits of India at the time of inspection by the Coastaguard, on 12.10.2013 at about 3.30 a.m.

¶175

The next contention of the appellants is that even the vessel was found within the territorial water limits of India, as contended by the prosecution, the accused are entitled to right of Innocent Passage conferred by Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and was also recognized by UNCLOS.

¶176

Admittedly, the disputed vessel is a foreign ship and also Utility vessel owned by Advantfort Company and also a Flagship registered at registered in Sierra Leone in West Africa. The provision contained in the Maritime Zones Act and UNCLOS would show that every ship is entitled to the Right of Innocent Passage so long as the passage is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Section 4 of Maritime Zones Act, 1976 reads as follows:-

¶177

"4. Use of territorial waters by foreign ships.—

¶178

"(i) Without prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, all foreign ships (other than warships including sub-marines and other underwater vehicles) shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial waters.

¶179

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of India.

¶180

(ii) Foreign warships including submarines and other underwater vehicles may enter or pass through the territorial waters after giving prior notice to the Central Government: Provided that submarines and other underwater vehicles shall navigate on the surface and show their flag while passing through such waters.

¶181

(iii) The Central Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of the peace, good order or security of India or any part thereof, suspend, by notification in the Official https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gazette, whether absolutely or subject to such exceptions and qualifications as may be specified in

¶182

¶183

the notification, the entry of all or any class of foreign ships into such area of the territorial waters as may be specified in the notification.

¶184

In the United Nations Convention on the law of Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS), it is stated as follows:-

¶185

Article 17, Right of Innocent Passage:-

¶186

"Subject to this convention Ship of all States whether Coastal and Landlort enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea"

¶187

Article 18, Meaning of Passage

¶188

1.Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

¶189

(a)traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead of port facility outside internal waters; or

¶190

(b)proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

¶191

2.Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only insofar as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.

¶192

Article 19 Meaning of innocent passage

¶193

1.Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

¶194

2.Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

¶195

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

¶196

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

¶197

¶198

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

¶199

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

¶200

¶201

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

¶202

(g) the loading or unloading of any

¶203

commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

¶204

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

¶205

(i) any fishing activities;

¶206

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

¶207

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

¶208

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

¶209

As per Section 4(1) of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and also UNCLOS, every ship is entitled to right of innocent passage so long as the passage is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal states.

¶210

It is not the case of the prosecution that while passing through the territorial waters, the ship was engaged any of the acts constituted activities prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State. As far as the right of innocent passage is concerned, the general rule is that every foreign vessel is entitled to set right. Hence, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove the fact that the accused acted against the interest of the coastal state or the passage is not an innocent passage. The vessel is neither a passenger ship nor a merchant ship nor a cargo ship nor a warship nor a submarine nor a vessel working for a nation inimical to India. The vessel did not indulge in prejudicial activities mentioned in Section 4(1) of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976. There is no evidence at all in the prosecution that the accused have acted against the security of the coastal state.

¶211

A vessel may also pass through the territorial water in the course of its voyage even when there is no distress. It is not necessary that the vessel should be in distress in order to claim the benefit of right of innocent passage. However, there is evidence in the documents produced by the prosecution itself to show that the vessel was in distress as it was running out of fuel the entries found in the Log Books / Exs.P.20 & 21, conclusively would go to show that the vessel is in need of fuel and that it received fuel only on 11.10.2013. It can also be seen that the vessel was anchored, awaiting instructions for provisions, storage and bunker in shipping-parment the word, bunkering denotes refueling. Hence, when the vessel is in need of fuel, it can only be presumed in distress. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court that there was no evidence to show that the vessel was in distress is incorrect.

¶212

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶213

¶214

Under Article 18(2) of UNCLOS, the passage includes stopping and anchoring insofar as the same are incidental foreign navigation or render necessary by force majeure or distress. Hence, anchoring for genuine purpose like bunkering incidental to navigation falls within the protective ambit of innocent passage.

¶215

The trial Court has stated that eventhough the vessel was cleared from Cochin port with a view to go to Maldives, they have not done so as per the entries found in the Log Books and if their voyage is Maldives, which is in Arabian Sea, the vessel need not come into Gulf of Mannar and when their claim is, it is an innocent passage and the voyage is not continuous one and the movement of vessel is only suspicious. The contention of the prosecution is that instead of going from Kochin to Maldives, the ship has gone to Tuticorin. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the next port is Maldives and it does not mean that the ship should not go to any harbour in between Kochin and Maldives and eventhough the declaration was Maldives, it would not take away the right of the appellants' ship to transit into territorial water, even if they did not intend to deviate the route between Kochin and Maldives and the trial Court on suspicion alone convicted the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suspicious can be the basis for investigation, but it can never be convicted, based on suspicion and under no law, a person can be convicted based on suspicion.

¶216

63.The learned counsel for the appellants further relied on Article 27(1) of the UNCLOS, 1982, which reads as follows:

¶217

"Article 27 Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship

¶218

The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage, save only in the following cases:

¶219

(a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State;

¶220

(b) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea;

¶221

(c) if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular office of the flag State; or

¶222

(d) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances."

¶223

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The situation contemplated in the said Article did not arise in the instant case.

¶224

¶225

The learned Special Public Prosecutor assisted by the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused have not complied with the Rules provided under Merchant Shipping [Regulation of Entry of Ships into Ports, Anchorages and Offshore facilities) Rules, 2012.

¶226

Rule 4 reads as follows;

¶227

"4. If such vessel, is

¶228

(i) an oil product or chemical tanker more than twenty years old; or

¶229

(ii) a general cargo ship or bulk carrier or offshore support vessel or passenger vessel or any other type of cargo vessel more than twenty five years old; or

¶230

(iii) a liquefied natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas tanker more than thirty years old;

¶231

it shall be classed with a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies or with a recognised organisation duly authorised by Indian maritime administration."

¶232

Rule (7)

¶233

The operator of the vessel which intends to enter into the Indian territorial waters or Indian port facilities or Indian offshore facilities for any purpose shall submit either himself or through his shipping agent forty- eight hours before entering a port or offshore facilities or before entering .into the Indian territorial waters, whichever is earlier. The copies of the insurance policy and the Certificate of Class of the vessel to the concerned Port Authority.

¶234

Rule (13)

¶235

The Indian Coastguard and Indian Navy may also check and verify the- protection and indemnity insurance and the name of Classification Society of the vessel, if considered necessary. If the vessel is not in possession of a valid protection and indemnity insurance and certificate of class, the. matter shall be reported to the Directorate General https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Shipping immediately, for appropriate action under the Act."

¶236

¶237

The disputed vessel in this case is not a vessel mentioned in Rule 4 of the above Rules. Admittedly, the disputed vessel is a Utility Vessel and the same is also an anti-piracy vessel. The case of the prosecution is that the above said vessel was found Anchored in the Indian territorial water, while the Coastguard intercepted the said vessel. The operator of the said vessel did not intend to enter into the Indian territorial water or Indian Port facility or Indian Offshore facility. The said vessel was anchoring for want of bunkering ie., fuel. The said Rule further states that if any violation found, the matter shall be reported to the Director General of Shipping for appropriate action under the said Act. As per the Rule 13, it is admitted that nothing was reported to the Director General of Shipping in respect of the disputed vessel. Further, the disputed vessel does not come under the category of vessel mentioned in Rule 4 of the said Rules. The disputed ship has entered into the Indian territorial water based on the permission given by the Indian Coast-guard.

¶238

The next question is to be decided in this case about the application of Section 45(a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶239

As per Section 45 of the Indian Arms Act, in certain type of cases, the provision of arms act are not made applicable. These cases are specified in Clause-A to Clause-B of Section 45. In otherwards, if the case of the accused falls in any of Section 45, he is able to satisfy the requirement of such clause, such accused cannot be prosecuted for the commission of any offence punishable under the Indian Arms Act. Section 45 of the Indian Arms Act reads as under:

¶240

"45. Act not to apply in certain cases.—Nothing in this Act shall apply to

¶241

(a) arms or ammunition on board any sea-going vessel or any aircraft and forming part of the ordinary armament or equipment of such vessel or aircraft;"

¶242

In case, if the accused seeking aid of Section 45(a) to avoid the prosecution under the Indian Arms Act, then it is necessary to prove that arms and ammunition stored in the vessel were “forming part of the ordinary ornament or equipment” of the vessel. The question as to whether arms / ammunition form part of the ordinary ornaments or equipment of any vessel, is the question of fact. Therefore, the accused has to satisfy that arms and ammunition seized from the vessel in fact part of the ordinary ornament or equipment of the vessel and hence, were exempted from the operation of arms act by virtue of Section 45(a).

¶243

As per the evidence of P.W.44 / Investigating Officer, the Inspector of Police seized 35 Guns (M.O.6 series); 102 Magazines https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (M.O.7 series) and 5682 ammunition (M.O.8 series) from the vessel under Ex.10 seizure mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. As

¶244

¶245

per the evidence of P.W.38 Ballistic expert, who conducted analysis and submitted Ex.P62 report. Samples 1 to 44 are arms and magazines and 45 to 49 are unused cartridges. Samples 1 to 4 are 7.6 x 63 mm spring field semi automatic rifles manufactured in Belgium. Sample Nos. 6 to 11, 13 and 14 are 7.62 x 39 mm size semi automatic rifles. Item No. 6 to 11 were manufactured in Czech-Republic, sample 13 and 14 were manufactured in Russia, sample 16 to 21 are 7.62 x 51 mm caliber selected automatic rifles manufactured in Germany, sample No. 23 to 27, 29 to 32, 34 to 36 and 40 are 7.62 x 51 mm caliber are semi automatic rifles. Sample 23 to 27, 29 to 31, 34 to 36 were manufactured either in England or in Australia. Sample No.32 was manufactured in Italy. Sample No.40 was manufactured in Germany. Sample Nos.37, 38, 42 are 5.56 x 45 mm caliber semi automatic rifles. Sample Nos.37 and 38 were manufactured in Italy. Sample No.42 was manufactured in Germany. Sample No.43 are 9 x 19 mm caliber is a semi automatic pistol manufactured in Austria. Out of the sample Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 11, 13 and 14, 16 to 21, 23 to 27, 29 to 32, 34 to 38, 40, 42 and 43 are firearms classified under Indian Arms Act, 1959. Sample Nos.16 to 21 are restricted and prohibited firearms under Arms Act, 1959. He also furnished the capacity of magazines. Sample No.5 contains 10 rounds in numbers, Sample No.12 contains 30 rounds, sample No.15 contains 30 rounds, sample No.22 contains 20 rounds, sample No.28 contains 20 rounds, sample No.33 contains 4 rounds, sample No.39 contains 30 rounds, sample No.41 contains 20 rounds, sample No. 44 contains 17 rounds and those are suitable for the rifles, sample Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 21, 23 to 27, 29 to 31, 34 to 36, 32, 37, 38, 40, 43 respectively. The cartridges in sample No.45 are of 7.62 x 39 mm caliber can be used in sample No. 6 to 11, 13 and 14. In sample No.46 measuring 7.62 x 63 mm caliber (0.30 – 0.6 spring field) can be used in sample No.1 to 4 rifles. Sample No.47 cartridges measuring 7.62 x 51 mm caliber can be used in sample No.16 to 21, sample No.23 to 27, sample No.29 to 32, sample No.34 to 36 and 40 rifles. Cartridges in sample No.48 measuring 5.56 x 45 mm caliber can be used in sample No.37, 38 and 42 rifles. Cartridges in sample No.49 measuring 9 x 19 mm caliber used in sample No.43 pistol. Sample Nos. 45 to 49 are all manufactured in Arms Industry bears the Nationality and its symbols. P.W.38 further stated in his report that, combustion products of smokeless powder were detected in the barrels of sample Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 21, 23 to 27, 29 to 32, 34 to 38, 40, 42 and 43 which indicates that the guns were used for firing previously. Test firing was conducted in all the above gun items, using appropriate cartridges from item 45 to 49 and 9 cartridges from the laboratory stock and found that the guns are in the working condition and submitted a report in Ex.P62 to the Court along with above items including empty cartridges which were used for test firing. P.W.38 further deposed that, item No.16 to 21 are prohibited G3 model guns. On touching the trigger all the loaded bullets would be delivered. So the model is prohibited, for which licence could not be obtained in India and other above fire arms can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be used after getting permission under Arms Act.

¶246

¶247

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have violated the provisions of the Arms Act. In terms of Section 7 of the Arms Act, no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. Admittedly, out of the total number of arms, which were seized from the vessel, as per the evidence of P.W.38, Item Nos.16 to 21 alone were alleged to be prohibited arms. The expression, "prohibited arms'' have been defined to means “fire arms so designed or adopted that, if the pressure is applied to the trigger, the missiles continue to be discharged until the pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missile is empty". In otherwards, the weapons should be such that if the pressure is applied once, missiles continue to be discharged until the pressure is removed. The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution to show that the arms in question are prohibited arms (Nos.16 to 21) is Ex.P62 report of the Ballistic Expert to P.W.38, who states in his crossexamination that “khjphp vz;. 16 Kjy; 21 tiua [s ;s RLffyd;fspy; 3 bray;Kiwfs; cs;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. mjpy; 'S' vd;gJ Safety. 'E' vd;gJ Semi Automatic (,ilepiy jhdpaq;fp). 'F' vd;gJ jhdpaq;fp. mtw;wpy; 'F' vd;gJ cyf mstpy; jil bra;ag;gl;oUf;fpwJ vd;gjhy; Jg;ghf;fp jahhpg;ghsh;fshny me;j bray;Kiw lk;kp bra;ag;gl;L gad; gLj;j Koahky; jilbra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. (rhl;rpaplk; me;j tif Jg;ghf;fp xg;gilf;fg;gl;L mjdi mth; Mg;gnul; bra;J rhp ghh;j;J ,e;ef; nfs;tpf;Fg; gjpy; mspj;Js;shh;). khjphp vz; 16 Kjy; 21 tiua[s ;s Jg;ghf;fpfSf;F ,e;j bray;Kiw jil bra;ag;gl;lJ bghUe;Jk; vd;why; rhpjhd;. me;jtif Jg;ghf;fpfspy; gad;gLj;jf;Toa Magazine-fs; tiu vz;zpf;ifapyhd njhl;lhf;fis kl;Lnk gad;gLj;j Koa [k; vd;why; rhpjhd;. ,e;j 6 Jg;ghf;fpfspYk; 'E' vd;w bray;Kiwapid ghpnrhjid bra;tjw;fhf xU njhl;lhtpiz kl;Lk; gad;gLj;jpndd;. mJ rhpahf btspnawpaJ. mtw;wpy; 1-f;F nkw;gl;l njhl;lhf;fisg; gad;gLj;jp ghpnrhjid bra;jpUe;jhy; ntiy bra;jpUf;fhJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. me;j Ma [jq;fs; 6-k; rhjhuzkhf Semi Automatic vd;why; rhpjhd;."

¶248

The fire arms sample Nos.16 to 21 has three operations mode viz., 'S' mode, meaning safety; 'E' Mode, meaning semi automatic and 'F' mode, meaning automatic mode. He further states that it is correct state that this ''F' mode is banned and hence, the manufactures of the guns themselves made it dummy mode. The said statement was made, when the weapon was handed over to the witness during the course of his evidence and was inspected by him. He further stated that the mode is banned for all the samples 16 to 21. He also states that the said weapons had bullet capacity of 20 and that he used one bullet to test fire the weapons in each of six guns to 'E' mode. He further stated that it would not operate, if more than one bullet is used for test firing. He has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ finally admitted during his evidence that it is correct to say that all the six weapons are semi automatic. Hence, when the expert P.W.38 himself has clarified his report by stating that the weapons

¶249

¶250

in question are all semi automatic. Hence, the submissions made by the State Special Public Prosecutor during arguments is not supported by the evidence of P.W.38 / Ballistic Expert in respect of the alleged prohibited arms. The findings of the trial Court is contrary to the facts, as the weapons did not have the mechanism of an automatic weapons as can be seen from the evidence of Ballistic Expert / P.W.38.

¶251

In this case on hand, when the Ballistic Expert himself says that the weapons are semi automatic weapons, the trial Court ought not to have classified it as prohibited weapons. The end-user certificate marked as defence documents in this case would also show that the weapons mentioned in those documents are semi automatic weapons. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the prosecution that the weapons are prohibited arms and possessing the same is an offence under Section 7 of the Arms Act and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the weapons in question fall within the definition of prohibited arms.

¶252

As far as the offence under Section 3 of the Arms Act is concerned, no person shall acquire or having in its possession firearms unless he hold a valid licence issued under the provisions of the Act. All the licences and certificates have been marked as Exs.D61 to D69 and D72 in this case. The appellants admitted that they have not taken licence under Section 3 of the said Act, as it is not possible for the appellants to take under this Act because, the appellants cannot go everywhere and get licence in all countries.

¶253

Section 39 of the Arms Act mandates that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 of the Act, without previous sanction of the District Magistrate. The District Collector / P.W.41, who has accorded Ex.P67 sanction in this case, has categorically admitted during his cross-examination that exemption under Section 45(a) of the Arms Act is applicable in this case. Hence, there is no reason to sanction the prosecution. When P.W.41 was questioned about the applicability of Section 45(a) of Arms Act, he answered that it is applicable though he had admitted that his sanction is only in respect of the Arms Act.

¶254

The consistence of the plea of defence is that the disputed vessel is utility vessel and engaged in antipiracy operation. P.W.2 has also admitted that the disputed vessel is an antipiracy vessel and as per the Joint Committee Minutes, the disputed vessel is antipiracy vessel. He further states that he is aware private maritime security company provides security personnel and arms to the merchants vessel pirates. The disputed vessel is registered as utility board and it is not a cargo carrier or an oil tanker or a passenger vessel. It is used for carrying security https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ guards with arms for deployment to merchant vessel plying through piracy affected area. Ex.P19 Log Book entries made on 02.10.2013,

¶255

¶256

04.10.2013, 05.10.2013 and 07.10.2013 and Ex.P20 Log Book entries made on 09.10.2013 would show that armed security guard embarked and disembarked the vessel. P.W.2 has also admitted the facts that the guards were embarked and disembarked from other ships on various dates. The trial Court has observed in para 117 of its Judgment that the vessel is involved in a business of protection from the attack of piracy on high risk area, but it is only on profit motive and no way benefit to the coastal state. Such a finding is totally erroneous and unsustainable and the learned Judge has imposed additional condition in order to claim the protection under Section 45(a) of the Arms Act, as rightly contended by the appellants.

¶257

The disputed vessel herein is an utility vessel engaged in supply of arms guard to merchant vessel in antipiracy operation and for which business, the arms carried by it form part of it ordinary arms of the vessel. In the present case, the vessel had no intention to visit the Indian port and hence, the question of complying with the guidelines stated in Ex.P63 does not arise. The rules in question apply only to vessel calling on boats anchored and also facilities. The disputed vessel is in possession of certificate Exs.P23, D72. In the above stated circumstances and facts, the accused are entitled to exemption provided under Section 45(a) of the Arms Act and hence, they cannot be charged for any offence under the said Act.

¶258

The State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would contend that the endusers certificate, which is called as licences for the arms, are not proved while they were produced as ''D'' Series in this case. The respondent has not objected before the trial Court to mark those documents as defence exhibits without examining the competent person on the side of the defence.

¶259

To sum up ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' was registered with Sierra Leone in West Africa, as a utility vessel and the operations of the vessel is to provide security guard to various merchant-ships that pass through piracy high risk area in the high sea. It is not the case of the prosecution that ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio' is an unregistered vessel or a pirate vessel, which was admitted in the evidence of the prosecution that ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio' is a ship registered in a Sierra Leone and engaged in anti piracy business. The concept of flagship being floating island of a flag state is recognized one under the International Maritime Law. India and the Flag State Sierra Leone in this case are signatures of UNCLOS. The disputed ship / utility vessel is a foreign vessel and as per the provision of Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the said vessel is having the right of innocent passage and also UNCLOS and hence, enjoying the right of innocent passage is recognized. The prosecution has failed to prove that the disputed ship is engaged in any of the activities prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the State and the burden of proving the fact is only on the prosecution. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proved in this case that the ship was anchored at the given place on account of distress for want of provisions and fuel. In shipping

¶260

¶261

parlance, the word, 'Bunker' means filling fuel for the ship. The ship never had an intention of visiting Indian ports, because the captain was waiting for further instructions and for getting provisions and fuel. When the Indian Coast-guard questioned them over wireless, they did not hide the possession of arms on the vessel and the anchor was lifted only on the order of Indian Coastguard and further, it was Indian Coast-guard, which pirated the vessel from the out-port limit of Thoothukudi into the berth in the Port. Hence, the findings of the trial Court that the principle of Innocent passage has been breached by the accused in this case, is not correct, in the considered opinion of this Court. There is no violation, as per the guidelines of Circular, dated 28.09.2011, issued by the Director General of Shipping, Government of India, which says that Indian Ship owners can deploy armed security guards in pursuance of Section 45(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶262

Even according to the prosecution, the ship was finally found anchored in the sea and it is not alleged to have committed any of the violations enumerated in Article 27(1) (a to d) of UNCLOS. Hence, the crew and guards of ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the Arms Act, for possession of fire arms on board in the vessel. The ship was found anchored at 080 52.0' North, 0780 26.7' East based on the Deck Log Book and GPS Log Book and it is obvious that the ship ran out of provisions. Both sides do not question the genuineness of the Log Books and the prosecution relies upon the Log Books to show that the ship was within the territorial water, but the entries found in the said Log Books at 7.35 Hrs on 12.10.2013 only the ship lifted anchoring and on permission received from the Indian Coast-guard, and was brought into the Indian water limits and berthed in the Tuticorin Port. The fire arms and ammunition were kept in a room of the vessel under the custody of the captain of the vessel. The Ballistic Expert / P.W.38 has also admitted that Exs.16 to 21 are also semi-automatic arms on demonstration by himself before the trial Court. The Sanctioning Authority / P.W.41 has answered the question of defence that Section 45(a) of the Arms Act is applicable in this case. The End User Certificate in the form of licence and also the Certificate of Recognition / D.72 are also marked as defence exhibits, in which, weapons were shown as semi-automatic alone. Hence, the Arms Act, 1959 cannot be invoked by the Indian Authorities on board Flagship viz., ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' and the provision of Section 45(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, will protect the crew and guards from being prosecuted.

¶263

The prosecution failed to prove the fact that ''M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio'' anchored was intercepted by the coastguard on 12.10.2013 at 3.30 hrs., within the territorial water limits of India. The location of the vessel and the baseline drawn with pencil in Ex.P5 / Map are not proved by competent witness. No https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reason is assigned for non-examination of the person, who drew the location of the ship and baseline alleged to be connected with the

¶264

¶265

coastal points mentioned in Ex.P1 / Notification, by the prosecution. There is no evidence to show that the baseline drawn in Ex.P5 / Map is of the year 2007 and is in accordance with the provision of Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and also UNCLOS. The contention of the prosecution that Navigation chart of the disputed vessel by the accused cannot be accepted, since P.W.2 the coastalguard, who has inspected the vessel at the first instance, has admitted that the disputed vessel also having Navigation Chart and the prosecution witnesses have stated that all the records and articles found in the vessels were seized and also the vessel was seized and berthed in Thoothukudi VOC Port.

¶266

Ex.P5 / Map relied on by the prosecution has no credence of relevance in the context of the case under Section 10 of the Maritime Zones Act, and no map or plan authenticated after 20.11.2009 was placed before the trial Court to substantiate the baseline, latitude and longitude of the position of the ship. Hence, no reliance can be made on Ex.P5 / Map. Since the location of the ship, on the date of occurrence, found anchoring at 3.30 hrs., on 12.10.2013 within the territorial Indian water limits, as mentioned in Ex.P5 and also 12 Nautical Miles from the Marine Police Station, as contended by the prosecution, as per G.O.Ms.No.744, dated 03.07.2008, is not proved in this case by the prosecution. Hence, the registration of FIR and the investigation by the respondent is not correct. The trial Court had acquitted the accused finding not guilty under Section 120-B of IPC. and Section 36(2) r/w 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 and also from the charges of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has stated that as per the Judgment, 12 Indian National accused i.e., A4 to A11, A29, A31, A32 and A35 are lodged in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and 23 Foreign National accused ie., A1 to A3, A12 to A28, A30, A33 and A34 are lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶267

In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed. The judgment of the trial Court / Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 11.01.2016 passed in S.C.No.262 of 2015, is set aside acquitting the accused Nos.A1 to A35 from the charges of under Section 25(1-A), r/w Section 7, Section 25(1-B)(a) r//w.Section 3 and Section 25(1-B)(f) r/w. Section 10 of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959). The appellants are ordered to be released forthwith, unless their detention is required in connection with any other case. The deposits made by the accused in this case, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the concerned accused, on application. The seized Passports and Seaman Books of the concerned accused are ordered to be returned, on filing proper application, after getting acknowledgment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶268

Sd/Assistant Registrar(ADII) /True Copy/

¶269

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶270

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶271

¶272

¶273

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.

¶274

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi 3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi

¶275

4.The District Collector, Thoothukudi

¶276

5.The District Collector, Chennai 6.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4 7.The Superintendent , Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 8.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai 9.The Inspector of Police, 'Q'Branch CID, Thoothukudi District Marine Police Station, Tharuvaikulam

¶277

10.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶278

11.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +3ccs to Mr.R.Anand, Advocate, SR.No.89925 +2ccs to Mr.P.Muthusamy, Advocate, SR.No.89564 +One cc to The Additional Public Prosecutor, SR.No.89714 +One cc to The Additional Public Prosecutor, SR.No.89740

¶279

MPK

¶280

RL/19C/45P/1/12/2017/SAR

¶281

Judgments made in

¶282

Crl.A(MD)Nos.41, 43 and 44 of 2016

¶283

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶284

27.11.2017