LexSTATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, VISHAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH versus V. JA YACHANDRA @ EZHU VIRAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, VISHAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH v. V. JA YACHANDRA @ EZHU VIRAL AND ORS. MARCH 13, 1997 [G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANA VTI, JJ.) A B Penal Code, 1860-Sections 353/34, 438134-+'essel on high sea exhibits C "not under command" lights and not flying any flag indicating its nationality, nor responding to radio calls-On repeated call, they responded but was suspi- cious-Coast-Guard officers demanded boarding for verification which was refused-lndian Naval Officers fired warning shots to divert their attention for facilitating the boarding operation-Accused fire retaliatory shots-Meanwhile, vessel caught fire and destroyed-Held, accused used criminal force against D the Indian Naval Officers with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties-Facts and circumstances established that the accused themselves destroyed their ship in order to avoid detection of the trne state of affairs and consequential action-Hence, acquittal of the accused under Ss.353/34 and 438/34 set aside. Coast Guard vessel V of government of India, noticed one vessel/ship Yin the high sea, displaying "Not under Command" lights and without any nat(onality flag. It was not responding to radio calls. On repeated radio calls A-1, master of the ship responded but did not give the correct name or the call sign. Coast-Guard demanded boarding for verification, A·l refused and threatened for dire consequences by saying that they were carrying 110 tonnes of explosives. Thereafter Ship started fleeing away by taking zig-zag course. After a long chase Y agreed to sail towards madras, though it did not agree for it inspection. E F According to the prosecution, Y was on clandestine voyage and w.is G carrying explosives for terrorist operations. As the ship was intercepted by V, all the accused conspired together to throw over board all the boxes containing explosives and to destroy evidence as regards their links and not to surrend.er to Indian Navy or to allow them to inspect their vessel. They fired shots at Naval/Coast Guard Officers to prevent them from H 1063 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 2 S.C.R. A exercising their right of inspection and to .discharge their duties. There- after, they had set fire to the ship in order to avoid detection of the true state of <1ffairs and consequential action, C.B.I. investigated and framed a charge sheet U/S 120.B read with Secs. 201, 353 and 438 IPC, Sec 27 of Indian Arms Act, Sec. 3, 4 and 6· of Indian Explosive Substance Act, Sec. B 3(2) ancl (3) of TADA Act and Ruic ll(a) of the TADA Rules against the accused in the Court of the Sessions ancl Designated Judge. The Designated Sessions Judge observed that interception of Y by the Coast Guards an cl demand for its inspection were not justified as A-1 had, though belatedly, given the correct nationality of his ship. The Judge · C did not believe the prosecution evidence~ that the warning shots were without explosive and Y fired retaliatory shots with RPG gun at Indian Naval ships ancl held that Y probably caught fire due to shots fired by the Indian Naval ships; and as such the prosecution has failed to establish any charges levelled against the accused and ac11uittecl the.accused. Hence, . this appeal. D Appellant contended that the Designated Judge has not correctly a11preciated the evidence and correct legal position as regards Pi1hlic Armed Vessel to demand boarding for inspection when there was reasonable ground for suspecting that the other ship was witllout E nationality. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD 1. The ollicers of Coast Guard/Indian Navy who were insisting upon boarding were performing their duty, as they bona fide believed that· F they ha.cl right to do so. Under Article 110 a Public Armed Vessel, if it encount~rs on high sea a foreign ship, and has. reasonable ·ground to suspect that .the ship is without nationality, it has right to intercept ahcl demand boarding for verification. [1070-F-G, 1070-A-B] 2.1. PW-22, Indian Naval Olliccr clearly staled in his evidence that G they fired warning shots to make Y surrender and divert their attention for facilitating the boarding operation and there was a retaliatory fire from Y. · Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness which would create any doubt regarding his credibility and reliability. The evidence of PW-9, PW-13 ancl PW-22 have been closely scr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.