CHERN TAONG SHANG & ANR., ETC., ETC. versus COMMANDER S.D. BAIJAL & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 13-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CHERN TAONG SHANG & ANR., ETC., ETC. 
A 
'<'. 
v. 
COMMANDER S.D. BADAL & ORS. 
'r 
JANUARY 13, 1988. 
[B.C. RAY & K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY. JJ.I 
B 
Maritime Zones of India Act, 1981-Maritime Zones of India 
)' 
Rules, 1982-Interpretation-Applicability of the provisions of-Section 
) 
13 of the Act-Whether mandatory. 
-
The facts and issues involved in all these appeals were similar. 
f 
c 
Criminal Appeals Nos. 644-45·87 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 642-
"Y 
43 87 were against the judgment and order of the High Court of 
Bombay, dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by masters of two 
trawlers against their conviction and sentence and allowing the appeal 
filed by Commander S.D. Baijal against the acquittal of accused Nos. 3 D 
and 4, i.e. the Charterer Company and its Managing Director and also 
_, 
releasing the trawlers. The High Court convicted the accused Nos. 3 
and 4 for contravention of sub-section 6 of section 5 of the Maritime 
Zones of India Act, 1981 (M.Z.I. Act) read with section 7 thereof and 
rule 16 of the Maritime Zones of India Rules 1981, (M.Z.I. Rules). The 
High Court also ordered confiscation of the two trawlers, vesting the 
E 
'( 
same in favour of the Central Government under section l3 of the 
'M.Z.I. Act . 
..... 
The two trawlers involved-foreign vessels-were chartered by 
~ 
the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 herein for fishing in Maritime Zone of India 
( 
~ 
after obtaining permit under section 5 of the M.Z.I. Act. The trawlers F 
(-. along with three other pairs of trawlers were apprehended and seized 
·r 
by the Coast Guard ship commanded by Commander S.D. Baijal for 
fishing operations in the exclusive economic zone of India, in violation 
of the terms and conditions of the permit and the letter of intent granted 
to that company by the Government of India under section 5(4) of the 
M.Z.1. Act and in violation of the M.Z.I. Rules. They were prosecuted 
G 
-1 
by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the complaint filed 
by Commander S.D. Baijal as authorised officer under section 19 of the 
-.,. 
M.Z.I. Act. The masters of the trawlers, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, 
were convicted and sentenced to pay fines and the other accused respon-
dents Nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted and the trawlers and the fishes 
thereon were ordered to be released on payment of the detention 
H 
641 
A 
B 
c 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] 2 S.C.R. 
charges. Of the other three pairs of foreign trawlers chartered by 
Indian Company for fishing in the Maritime Zone of India under the 
permit granted under the M.Z.I. Act, which were seized and pro-
secuted, two pairs of trawlers with fishes thereon were ordered to be 
confiscated while one pair of these trawlers were directed to be 
released. The masters of each pair of trawlers were similarly convicted 
and sentenced to pay fine for violation of the provisions of the said Act 
and the Rules thereunder. 
The Masters of the pair of trawlers filed a criminal appeal against 
their conviction and sentence while the complaining Commander S.D. 
Baijal filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 4 
and 5 i.e. the Managing Director of the company and the company and 
also against the release. of the trawlers in spite of conviction of the 
masters under section 12(b) of the M.Z.I. Act. The High Court disposed 
of these appeals by a common judgment, allowing the appeal of the 
masters in part and modifying their sentence and comicting, in the 
appeal filed by S.D. Baijal, the Managing Director and'the Company, 
D accused respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and sentencing them to pay fines, and 
ordering the trawlers to be confiscated with fishes thereon or the pro-
ceeds thereof in case of sale of the same. The High Court also held the 
masters of the trawlers guilty under Rule 8( l)(g) and convicted them 
nnder section l2(a) instead of section l2(b) of the M.Z.I. Act, but 
maintained the sentence of penalty. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Criminal Appeals Nos. 645-47 i87 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 650· 
51 of 1987 arose out of a C()mmon judgment of the High Court in two 
criminal appeals, modifying in part the judgment and order of the 
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the Magistrate had 
convicted the masters of the trawlers, i.e. accused Nos. l and 2 for 
contravening Rule 8(l)(g) read with Rule 16 and section 20(b) of the 
M.Z.I. Act and sentenced them to pay fines, in default of payment of 
fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment. The Magistrate also had made an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.