M/S. V.B.C. EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus COMMANDER S.D. BAIJAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 01-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·• 
M/S. V.B.C. EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
COMMAN:JER S.D. BAIJAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 1, 1996 
IM.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
MGJitime Zones of India (Regulation of Ffrhing by Fm~ign Vessels) 
Act, 1981: Sections 5(1)(6), 12 and 17. 
A 
B 
MGJitime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) 
C 
Rules, 1982: Rules 8( l)(d)(2) and 16. 
Foreign ressels-Fishing in 111alitilne zones of India-Violation of con-
ditions of pennit-Prosecution for-Liability of chGJtered Companies and 
their Managing Directors-Held they are liable for violation of conditions of 
pennit-Mere instnlctions given by cha1terers to Masters of Shi]JS to ensure D 
compliance with mies does not absolve the Janner of their liability. 
Respondent No. 1, the Commander of Coast Guard Ship 'Vikram', 
intercepted and seized a number of foreign vessels as they \Vere fishing in 
E 
the Maritime Zone of India in a depth of less than 40 fathoms of water in 
contravention of the terms and conditions of the permits granted under 
Section S of the Maritime Zones on India (Regulation of Fishing by 
Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981. The Trial Court convicted the Companies 
which owned the vessels and their Managing Directors but acquitted the 
Charterers-Companies and their Managing Directors. On appeal the 
Charterer-Companies and their Managing Directors were also convicted F 
and sentenced hy the High Court. The Charterer-Companies and their 
I\.1anaging Directors preferred appeal before this Court contending that 
(i) strict instructions had been given hy them to the Master of Vessels not 
to commit any breach of permit conditions and if the masters of the ships 
had violated their express command not to fish in the prohibited depth, G 
only the owners of the ships would he liable for the contravention and not 
the appellants, as charterers; and (ii) even if the Charterers-Companies 
were liable for the offence alleged their Managing Directors could not be 
prosecuted. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
233 
H 
A 
B 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. From a combined reading of the provisions of the 
Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 
1981 and Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign 
Vessels) Rules, 1982 it is manifest that for the alleged offence the 
Charterers have been specifically made liable to be convicted not only 
under Rule 16 but also under Section 12 of the Act. In view of the plain 
language of Rule 8(l)(d), Rule 8(2) and Rule 16, Section 5(6) of the Act 
has no manner of application whatsoever. Even if it is assumed that the 
Charterers had no knowledge as to what was going on in the High Court 
Seas, knowledge must be attributable to them for every foreign vessel 
(trawler) is supposed to be equipped with wireless equipment for com-
C 
munication in terms of its requirements and it is expected that the 
Charterer will be in touch with the trawlers wherever they are and for that 
matter get assistance fron1 the coast guard for any communication with 
the trawlers. [237-E-G] 
D 
2. Section 17(1) of the Act clearly .. says that when the offence is 
committed by a Company, persons responsible to the Company for the 
day-to-day business will be also liable along with the Company for the 
offence committed unless, of course, they can prove that the offence was 
committed without their knowledge or they exercised due diligence to 
prevent its commission. The evidence on ·record unmistakably proves that 
E 
the managing Directors herein were responsible to their respective Com-
panies for the conduct of their business and they did not bring on record 
any material to•avail of the proviso of the above sub-section and, for that 
matter, to exonerate themselves from the offences committed by their 
Companies. (238-B-D] 
F 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
573-74 of 1987 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.87 of the Bombay High 
Court in Crl.A. No. 660 of 1986. 
Yashank Adhayaru, Nikhil Sakhandade, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nan-
dini Gore, Ms. Ruby Ahuja and Manik Karanjawala for the Appellants. 
V .C. Mahajan, P. Parmaswaran and W.A. Quadri for lhe Respon-
H dents. 
V.B.C. EXPORTS PVT.LID. v. S.D. BAUAL [M.K MUKHERJEE,J.] 
235 
S.M. Jadhav and AS. Bhasme (NP), for the Respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. These appeals have been heard together as 
they involve common questions of fact and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.