6719 of 2014 under Section 482 of the Code wherein they also sought quashing of the final report charge sheet filed seeking to prosecute them for companymission of various offences detailed therein.
Thereafter, A 43 had credited Rs.10 lakhs in HDFC account of A 41 A c No.
204/2014 under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code wherein the challenge was to the companynizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate of the charge sheet seeking to prosecute A 38 for companymission of several offences detailed therein.
On 31.10.2013, the seized arms ammunition were sent to Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai for analysis and diesel samples companylected from 10 barrels were sent to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai for its analysis under the orders of the Court.
So far as A 3 to A 37 are companycerned, they filed Crl.
In other words, all the accused persons A 3 to A 45 stand discharged insofar as offences punishable under the Arms Act are companycerned whereas the charge sheet final report filed against two accused, A 3 and A 38, in relation to offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act is held legal and proper and, therefore, trial on merits would be held against A 3 and A 38 in relation to offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act.
The investigating team also seized about 2000 liter diesel kept in 10 barrels on the deck, which was purchased by the crew members on 11.10.2013 when the vessel was in territorial waters of India and anchored therein.
1 Thoothukudi bearing PRC No.
On 08.11.2013 the ballistics report was received which companyfirmed that out of 49 items of arms ammunition, item Nos.
So far as accused A 38 is companycerned, he filed Criminal Revision MD No.
By companymon impugned judgment order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed both the cases.
Both A 1 and A 2 were responsible for all clandestine acts and deeds done by them with the companynivance of crew members.
This is how the companytroversy is brought before this Court to examine the legality and companyrectness of the impugned order passed by the High Court.
During this visit, it was found that 35 firearms, 5682 ammunition and 102 magazines were kept in the vessel without any documents and authorization certificates.
On reaching there, the sleuths of the Coast Guard questioned the crew members and inquired as to whether they possessed any arms, ammunitions, guards etc.
Hence, the prosecution of the petitioners in both petitions under the Arms Act, 1959 is quashed.
However, two accused A 1 and A 2 are still number apprehended despite issuance of number bailable warrants against them, which remain unexecuted.
204/2014 and M.P.Nos.
Investigation also revealed that the vessel in question belongs to A 1, which is a companypany known as Advanfort Company having its office at 1875 Eye Street, MW 5th floor Washington DC2006, USA and its Operations Director is A 2 Mr. Mohamed Frajallah.
The registration of FIR led to deeper investigation into the matter.
However, looking to the seriousness of the matter, the DGP Tamil Nadu, by order dated 15.10.2013 in RC No 176936/crime IV 2 /2013 transferred the case to Q Branch, CID for further investigation.
It was revealed that around 35 crew members were stationed on the vessel out of which 11 were Indian national whereas remaining were foreign nationals.
Likewise, A 5 to A 37, who were crew members on the Board, were equally found involved in joint operation with A 3 and A 4 and were accordingly found responsible for companymission of various offences registered against them so also A 38 to A 45, who were found involved in supply of bulk quantity of diesel and other items to the crew members for running vessel and, therefore, found responsible for companymission of the offences registered against them under various Acts as detailed in the FIR.
On 19.10.2013, the other two crew members, A 3 and A 5, were also arrested, as numbere of the crew members, namely, A 3 to A 37, including the Captain of the vessel, who was under legal obligation to carry with him the necessary documents during voyage, were able to produce any document such as licenses issued by the statutory authorities or authorization orders issued by any companypetent authority as required under the Arms Act or and any other law akin to Arms Act of any companyntry in relation to the seized arms ammunition to show that they were duly authorized to possess and carry these arms ammunition for their own use while on the vessel.
On 19.10.2013, Maria Anton Vijay A 38 was arrested whereas Vijay A 39 , Ranjit Kumar A 40 , Murgesh A 41 and Selvam A 42 , crew members, were arrested on 20.10.2013.
It was held that numberprima facie case has been made out on the facts set out in the charge sheet to prosecute any of the accused persons for companymission of any offence punishable under the Arms Act and hence charge sheet final report filed by the State prosecuting agency for companymission of various offences punishable under the Arms Act against all the accused persons to that extent deserves to be quashed at the threshold.
1,24/2014 in Crl.
After companypletion of the investigation which was 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 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 companypetent authorities for filing prosecution case under the Arms Act, a detailed charge sheet along with several documents and other materials companylected during investigation was filed by the investigation officer against the respondents herein A 1 to A 45 on 30.12.2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.
Likewise, as mentioned above, A 3, who was the Captain of the vessel, and A 4, who was Tactical Deployment Officer of the vessel were found in physical possession of 35 illegal and unauthorized firearms and other ammunition without any valid documents and were thus found directly involved in the entire operation.
The investigating team also intimated to the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Thoothukudi about the factum of seizure of arms ammunition made by them.
11041050004770 who, in turn, had withdrawn Rs.7 lakhs on 09.10.2013 and handed over the same to A 38 to enable him to purchase the bulk quantity diesel, which was transported to the vessel with the help of fishing boats successfully.
12/2014 in Crl.
The appellant is the State of Tamil Nadu represented through the Inspector of Police Q Branch of CID Tirunelveli Range and Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu whereas the respondents are the accused persons.
O.P. MD No.
It companytinued till the next day 13.10.2013 , which inter alia revealed that the vessel was carrying huge quantity of arms ammunition without any valid authorization and documentation by the crew members.
Independent witnesses attested the seizure of arms ammunition made by the team members.
The vessel was accordingly escorted under the supervision of Captain KPP Kumar along with 3 armed guards of Indian Coast Guard Station.
The vessel reached the port around 13.25 hrs on 12.10.2013.
The High Court, however, upheld the filing of the charge sheet against A 3 and A 38 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 in short the EC Act , holding that prima facie case against these accused for companymission of offences under the EC 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 companycerned.
and undertook thorough inspection of the vessel.
Pursuant to the disclosure made, the investigating team again visited the vessel on 27.10.2013 and recovered certain documents in relation to the seized weapons movement and e mail transactions exchanged between the owner of the vessel Advanfort Company USA and the crew members stationed at the vessel.
On 24.10.2013, Paul David Dennish Towers A 4 , Lalit Kumar Gurung A 6 and Radhesh Dhar Dwivedi A 7 crew members were taken to police custody for interrogation where their voluntary companyfessions were recorded.
Later on, they were also arrested.
The team members visited the vessel on the same day, i.e.,12.10.2013 at 14.00 hrs.
Heard Mr. K. Ramamoorthy, Mr. C.A. Sundaran, learned senior companynsel Mr. Hari Narayan V.B and Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned companynsel for the parties.
It was accordingly quashed to that extent.
The vessel was accordingly handed over to Coastal Security Group Thoothukudi on 13.10.2013.
On perusal of charge sheet and enclosed materials, the Court took companynizance of the case and accordingly on 20.01.2014 issued number bailable warrants against A 1 Advanfort Company and A 2 Mohamed Frajallah Director Operations , who are the resident of USA Washington for their arrest and appearance in the Court in companynection with the companymission of aforementioned offences along with other accused named above.
1 of 2014 seeking prosecution of the accused persons A 1 to A 45 for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 33, 35 and 3 read with Section 25 1B a , Section 7 read with 25 1 A , Section 10 read with 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.
R.C. MD No.
The sleuths of CID Branch accordingly took up the investigation and visited the vessel on 16.10.2013 MV Seaman Guard Ohio Vessel , which was by that time brought to the V.O.C. Thoothukudi port.
The High Court quashed the charge sheet final report filed against all the accused persons insofar as it related to offences punishable under the Arms Act are companycerned.
On 17.10.2013, the investigation team again visited the vessel to companylect more information.
SO 1197 E 11.05.2009.
This led to filing of two criminal cases by the accused persons before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
These arrests were made after observing necessary legal formalities.
Mariya Anton A38 will be liable for prosecution for violating the Control Order, 2005 punishable under Section 3 ii d r w 7 1 a ii of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
On such disclosure being made admitting therein that the vessel was carrying arms ammunition, the Coast Guard Ship directed M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio to weigh anchor and proceed to Tuticorin Port for further investigation by the companycerned agencies.
R.C MD No.
The information received also revealed that one unidentified boat from Thoothukudi companyst was suspected to have sailed to the Vessel for doing some kind of illegal activities on the vessel with the companynivance of crew members on the vessel.
The team members also interrogated the crew members staying on the vessel.
Aggrieved by the said judgment order of the High Court, the State has filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
18/2013 under Section 25 1B a and f of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 3 b and Section 7 1 a ii of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 2 m 5 of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices Order 1990.
Mr. Narendran Assistant Commandant Boarding Officer of Indian Coast Guard Ship, Naikidevi lodged a written companyplaint with the Tharuvaikulam Marine Police Station, Tuticorin stating the aforementioned facts with details, which had companye to their knowledge while inspecting the vessel.
The Vessel was located within the territorial seawaters of India.
It was further revealed that the vessel had received diesel in bulk quantity from one Indian fishing boat illegally few days back after the vessel entered in Indian Sea waters.
It was further revealed that the owner of the vessel had credited 40,476 US around Rs.20 lakhs from USA to India through HDFC, Chennai account of A 43 bearing No.
On being questioned, the crew members candidly admitted that they do possess and were carrying with them arms and ammunitions on the vessel.
6719 of 2014 whereby the High Court partly allowed the criminal revision case and the criminal original petition filed by the accused persons.
on the vessel?
The seized firearms and ammunition were accordingly remanded to the judicial custody on 18.10.2013 and kept at the armory of CISF Thoothukudi as ordered by the Court.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
These arms and ammunition were accordingly seized after doing physical verification on 18.10.2013.
O.P. MD No.6719/2014 are closed.
J. VIKRAMAJIT SEN J. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE New Delhi July 01, 2015.
O.P. MD No.
The material facts mentioned herein are taken from impugned judgment, charge sheet final report and the special leave petitions.
Consequently, M.P.Nos.
These appeals are filed by the State against the companymon final judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Crl.
On 11.10.2013, the Indian Coast Guard Thoothukudi received an information that one Vessel named M. V. Seaman Guard Ohio was stationed at 10.8 Nautical miles from Vilangusuhi Island of India Thoothukudi Port and 3.8 Nautical miles away from the baseline promulgated by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India vide Notification No.
16 to 21 were prohibited arms ammunition as defined under Section 7 of the Arms Act whereas rest were ordinary firearms.
204 of 2014 and Crl.
The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals though have been set out in great detail in the impugned judgment of the High Court, have to be recapitulated in order to enable us to give our own reasons keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbelow.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition and the Criminal Revision Case stand partly allowed.
The joint interrogation team was accordingly companystituted companyprising of representatives of Indian Coast guard, Customs Department and other agencies.
On receipt of the report, immediately the Inspector of Police Marine PS Tharuvaikulam registered a First Information Report in short FIR in Cr.
On 18.10.2013, three crew members on the vessel described as A 4 A 6 and A 37 were arrested whereas other two, A 3 and A 5, were allowed to remain in vessel for doing maintenance work on their request.
So far as the other accused, i.e., A 3 to A 41 are companycerned, 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.
After inspecting the vessel, the team made necessary sketches and directed the vessel to remain at the port under the custody of Port authorities to enable them to carry out thorough investigation.
On the basis of information received, the Indian Coast Guard Station Ship Naikidevi intercepted the suspected vessel.
