LexM.T. ENRICA LEXIE & ANR. versus DORAMMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 4 S.C.R. 174 M.T. ENRICA LEXIE & ANR. v. DORAMMA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4167 of 2012) MAY 2, 2012 [R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Search and Seizure: c Power of police officer to seize certain property - Two Indian fishermen killed as a result of firing from an Italian ship - Letter issued by Kera/a Police to Master of the vessel not to continue her voyage without prior permission - Held: Admittedly, the vessel was not object of the crime nor have 0 any circumstances come up in the course of investigation that create suspicion of commission of any offence by the vessel - It has been further stated that the detention of the vessel was no longer required in the matter- Most of the safeguards sought for have been taken care of by the vessel and her E owner - The assurance given by the Republic of Italy to secure the presence of the four Marines, if required by any court or lawful authority, fully meets the ends of justice and protects wholly the interest of the State Government - In no way it affects the State Government's right to proceed with the investigation and prosecute the offenders - The State F Government and its authorities shall allow the vessel to commence her voyage subject to the directions given in the judgment - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.102. On 15.2.2012, an FIR was lodged by the owner of an G Indian fishing boat that as a result of indiscriminate firing from an Italian ship i.e. appellant no. 1, two of its fisherman died. During the course of investigation the Circle Inspector of the Kerala Police issued a letter to the Master of appellant no. 1 vessel not to continue her H 174 M.T. ENRICA LEXIE & ANR. v. DORAMMA & ORS. 175 voyage without his prior permission. The vessel and its A owner filed a writ petition before the High Court. Their stand was that the Master of the ship was in no way responsible and could not interfere with the military activities undertaken by the NMP Squad which was directly under the command of the military of Republic of B Italy. The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court permitting the vessel to commence her voyage subject to certain conditions. On the appeal filed by the wife of the one of the deceased fisherman, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the orders of c the single Judge and permitted the vessel and its owner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with an application u/s 457 CrPC. Aggrieved, the vessel and its owner filed the appeal. Meanwhile three admiralty suits were filed by the D owner of the fishing boat and the heirs of the deceased fishermen. Three settlements took place before Lok Adalat. The State Government contended that the said settlements were against public policy as also the Indian laws and would be challenged in appropriate E proceedings. The Republic of Italy was also permitted to intervene. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The police officer in the course of F investigation can seize any property u/s 102 CrPC if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. A property not G suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under s. 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by s.102(1) and no other. (para 13] (181-G-H; 182-A] H 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A 1.2. It is the admitted case that the vessel was not object of the crime nor have any circumstances come up in the course of investigation that create suspicion of commission of any offence by the vessel. It has been further stated that the detention of the vessel was no B longer required in the matter. In view thereof, the order of the Division Bench of the High Court in upsetting the order of the Single Judge is set aside. [para 14] [182-C- D] 1.3. Two things are required to be made clear - (i) In C the instant appeal, the Court is not directly concerned with the correctness, legality or validity of the settlements arrived at between the Republic of Italy and claimants- pla i ntiffs. Having regard to certain clauses in the settlements, insofar as the instant appeal is concerned, D these settlements deserve to be ignored; and (ii) the limited
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.