Supreme Court of India
CAPTAIN SUBASH KUMARversusPRINCIPAL OFFICER, MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT, MADRAS
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 68
- Decided
- 22 February 1991
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K N SAIKIA
Holding
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 does not apply to a foreign ship outside Indian territorial waters; therefore Part XII is inapplicable and the section 363 complaint is invalid.
Summary
Captain Subash Kumar, master of the Panamanian‑flagged MV Eamaco, was charged under section 363 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 for alleged negligence in failing to launch lifeboats when the ship sank 232 nautical miles from India. The appellant contended that the Act did not apply because the vessel was foreign, the incident occurred on the high seas outside India's territorial waters, and the complaint was not a valid transmission by the Central Government. The Supreme Court held that the Act applies only to Indian ships or foreign ships while within Indian territorial waters (limited to 12 nautical miles), and the incident occurred beyond both territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone. Consequently Part XII of the Act, which deals with shipping casualties, was inapplicable, and the complaint under section 363 lacked the statutory requisites, particularly the required transmission by the Central Government. The Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment, quashed the complaint and the proceedings, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 to a foreign ship that sank outside India's territorial waters.
- Whether Part XII of the Act, dealing with investigations into shipping casualties, applies to the incident.
- Whether the complaint filed under section 363 of the Act is maintainable in the absence of a statutory transmission by the Central Government.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976
- Merchant Shipping Act, 1958s. 2, s. 358, s. 359, s. 360, s. 361, s. 362, s. 363, s. 364, s. 365, s. 369, s. 370
- Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976s. 2, s. 3
Subjects
Merchant Shipping Actjurisdictionterritorial watersexclusive economic zoneshipping casualtysection 363captain negligenceforeign shiphigh seascriminal procedurequash complaint
Judgment
CAPTAIN SUBASH KUMAR
A
V.
PRINCIPAL OFFICER, MERCANTILE MARINE
DEPARTMENT, MADRAS
FEBRUARY 22, 1991
B
[K.N. SAIKIA AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.]
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958: Section 363-Jnitiation of enquiry~,.~
proceeding into charges of incompetency or misconduct of Captain of
Ship.
c The appellant was the Master of the Merchant ship, M. V.
Eamaco, when it sank in the high seas nearly 232 nautical miles away
from India. The appellant was holder of a Master's certificate issued by
-
the ~Direc!or .General of Shipping, Calcutta. The ship was owned by a
Singapore company and was flying Panamian flag.
D
The first respondent filed a complaint in the Court of 14th
J\'Ietropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras against the appellant for
·initiation of enquiry. proceedings under section 363 of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1958 complaining about the negligence of the appellant
while he was the Master of the ship and further stating that the shipping
E casualty had occurred due to sheer negligence and gross incompetence J
of the Master when he failed to launch the life boats and life crafts ~
which resulted in loss of the ship, the cargo and valuable lives of sailors.
The apJ>ellant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in the High·
Court under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. stating that the proceedings were
F by an a'!use of process of the court and the Court had no jurisdiction to
proceed with the complaint against the appellant when there was no
negligence on his part.
~
The High Court rejected the petition and held that the Shippin_g
Act was applicable to the instant case and ·the action of the petitioner
G amounted to sheer negligence and called for investigation and inquiry
under the Act. The appellant has appealed to this Court.
In this court it was inter alia contended on behalf of the appellant J
that (i} the negli_gence complained of having occurred in r!spect of a - '
foreign ship, flying foreign flag, at a place 232 nautical miles away from
H India, and as such, outside the territorial waters of India, the-Act wa5
742
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEP1T. 743.
-~ not applicable; (ii) even if the Act was applicable it would n_pt amount to
a shipping casualty as envisaged in part XII of the Act; and (iii) even A
assuming_ that Chapter XII _applied the-complaint could not havebeen
filed by the appellant in the court of the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore under Section 363 of the Act.
On befalf of the respondent it was contended that the shipping
casualty having occurred within the territorial waters of India which B
~extended up to 200 nautical miles, the Act would be applicable .. It was
further submitted tl!at the ct?rtificate of competence issued under the
provisions of Part VI of the Act was a valuable certificate and if the
;,.,. holder of such a certificate of competency was alleged to have commit-
- ted misconduct or acts of inconipetency there was no reason why an
inquiry into that misconduct or incompet~ncy could not be ordere~ by C
the Central Government to a court competent to exercise jurisdiction
~ under section 361 of the Act.
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High
Court, and quashing the complaint and the proceedings against the
appellant, this Court, D
HELD: (1) The ship was not a ship owned wholly by persons each
of whom was a citizen of India or by a company satisfying the descrip-
1 tion under clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act. The
~ ship being a Panamanian ship registered in Panama would come within \,
the purview of the Act only while it was within India including its E 1
territorial waters. [749C-D]
~ (2) By a notification of the Government of India dated 15th
January, 1977 the exclusive economic zone of India had been extended
upto a distance of 200 nautical miles into the !tea from the shore and
other maritime zones, under the 40th Constitution Amendment Act,
f-- 1976. [750H-751A] -- F
(3) The concepts of territorial waters, continental shelf and exclu-
sive economic zone are different concepts and the proclamation of
exclusive economic zone to the limit of 200 nautical miles into the sea
from the shore baseiine would in no way extend the limit of territorial
waters which extends to 12 nautical miles measured from the G
}-. appropriate baseline. [7SlB] - -
(4) Admittedly the ship at the time of the cas~alty was at a place
beyond the territorial waters of India and even the exclusive economic
zone of India. if this be the positionLthe sh!!> _would not be covered 1!1
the provisions of section 2 of the Act and consequently the provisions of H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
A the Act would not apply to the instant casualty. [751C]
(S) The Act itself having not been applicable, Chapter XII being a
part of the Act will also not be applicable. [751D]
(6) What is envisaged under section 361 is a formal investigation
B into a shipping casualty and not a preliminary inquiry. Similarly
section 262 does not envisage inquiring into any charge of incompetency _>..-._ -
or misconduct otherwise than in the course of the formal investigation
into a shipping casualty. {753H-754B]
(7) Prima facie, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients
C required under section 363 of the Act. It nowhere mentions that it was a
transmission of the statement of a case to the court by the Central
Government; it also nowhere mentions that the reason to believe had
been founded otherwise than in the course of a formal investigation into
the shipping casualty. On the other hand in para 2 it says that the
complainant is the Principal Officer who is competent person appointed
D under the Act to complain about the negligence of the accused. There is
however no doubt that he is not so empowered under section 363. [757G, E-F]
(8) The High Court correctly observed that section 363 enabled
the Central Government to transmit a case to the court which had
jurisdiction under section 361 to make an inquiry against master, mate
E or engineer into the charges for incompetency or misconduct otherwise
than in the course of formal investigation into shippµig casualties, but
the High Court failed to notice that the complainant himself had no
power under section 363. [758C-D]
'
F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 135 of 1991. __....,
From the Judgment and order dated 16.6.1989 of the Madras
High Court in Crl. M.P. Nq. 2717of1988.
G T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, K. Rajeswara, N.D.B. Raju and K.R.
Chaudhary for the Appellant. . . _ _)
•,
K.K. Lahiri,R.K. Jain (NP), Sreekant, N. Terdal, Mrs. Sushma
Suri and A Subba Rao for the Respondent.
H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. t-
•=
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEP'IT·. [SAIKIA, J.] 745
K.N. SAIKIA, J. Special leave granted.
A
The appellant Captain Subash Kumar was the Master of the
Merchant ship M.V. Eamaco owned by Eamaco Shipping Co. (P) Ltd.
Singapore, hereinafter called 'the ship'. On 12.8.86 the ship went into
- distress due to the vessel's hold Nos. 2 & 3 taking in water, the pump-
ing operations being insufficient and though initially the appellant sent
radio message for help he failed to launch the life boats and life crafts
B
,...land to abandon the ship to enable M.V. Shoun World to pick them up
and due to the failure of motor life boats and life crafts, when the ship
sank, only 11 out of 28 persons were rescued resulting in loss ·of life to
. the remaining persons. At about 18.25 Hrs. that day Madras Radio,
_ ; - - which was the communication centre between the land and seafaring
ships, informed the office of the Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine c
Department, Madras, District Madras, hereinafter called as 'Principal
_ ,Officer', that an urgent message had been received by the said Radio
--( from the appellant and from that communication it was clear that the
ship under the command of the appellant was posted at position 11
degrees 08 minutes North, 83 degrees 41 minutes East on 12th at ll.30 D
Greenwich meantime. The said message further indicated that the
vessel's hold Nos. 2 & 3 were taking in water and the pumping out
operation was not sufficient and it called the assistance from all ships
in the vicinity. At 20.28 Hrs. the Madras Radio again contacted the
»rincipal officer and said that the Radio had received SOS message
(distress message) and he took necessary steps. E
The Principal Officer filed a complaint in court of 14th Metropo-
... litan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras-8 against the appellant for initiation
of an inquiry proceeding under section 363 of the Merchant Shipping
Act, 1958 (Central Act No.4 of 1958), hereinafter called 'the Act',
( complaining about the negligence of the appellant while he was the F
t····~faster of the ship as aforesaid; and that at that time he was residing at
Laxmi Niwas, 41, Marshal Road, Egmore, Madras-8 and further stat-
ing that the shipping casualty had occurred due to sheer negligence
and gross incompetence on the part of the appellant in commanding
the ship and the crew; and that the very fact that the life boats and life
floats were not used and not even lowered so as to make use of that G
indicated that the appellant had not even thought about that which a
~ptain of the ship should have done, resulting in loss of the ship, the
cargo and valuable lives of the sailors who had at no time doubted
about the competency of the Master or revolted against him. The
complaint accordingly said that the Magistrate's Court. by the provi-
sions of section 363 had got powers to make inqiry into the charges of H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
incompet.enc~ or o~ misconduct of the ~ppellant therei~. It also sai~ ~
that the mqmry might be commenced m accordance with the provi- ·
sions of the Act so as to cancel the certificate of competency of the
Master, namely, the appellant, which had been granted by the Central
Government; and that cancellation might be recommended under the
B
Act after holding the aforesaid inquiry. The complaint also said that
the appellant rendered himself ii.able to be proceede.d ·against under the
provisions of part XII of the Act which envisaged various modes of
-
investigation and inquiry; and under section 363 the court had powers~
to make an inquiry into the charges of incompetency or misconduct of
the appellant.
On 25.3.1988, the appellant received a notice stating that the ~ ...
c inquiry proceedings were instituted against him before the 14th
Metropolitan Magistrate under section 363 of the Act. The appellant
thereupon filed Cr. M.P. No.2717 of 1988 in the High Court under""'- _
section 482 of the Cr.P.C. stating that the proceedings were by an r
abuse of process of the court and the Court had no jurisdiction to
D proceed with the complaint against the appellant when there was no
negligence on his part. It was also stated that the fact that the appellant
was a holder of a Master certificate issued by the Director General of
Shipping, Calcutta would not attract the provisions of the Act
inasmuch as the ship was a foreign ship and the Master certificate had
been issued by a foreign country and the casualty had occurred in the___..(
high seas nearly 232 nautical miles away from India and being in open
sea the ship was subject to the jurisdiction and also to the protection of
the State under whose maritime flag it sailed. The appellant was, it was
further stated, to be in command of the ship by virtue of the certificate
issued by the Panamanian Government, the flag of the ship was of
Pan~ma and,. therefore, the provisions of the Act would not at all
·F apply, much less its section 363. In other words the proceedings were . ,
allegedly intended to harass the appellant without jurisdiction and it_...,
amounted to an abuse of process of court.
The learned Single Judge who heard the petition rejected the
contention that in view of the language of section 2 of the Act it would
G not be applicable and that it would not be a shipping casualty as
defined in section 358 of the Act, and held that the Act was applicable
in the instant case and the action of the petitioner amounted to shee~
µegligence and called for investigation and inquiry under the Act. '
Hence this appeal.
H Mr. T. Krishnamurthy Iyer, the learned counsel for the appel-
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEPTI. [SAIKIA, J.] · 747
~ -lant, submits, inter alia, that the neglignce complained of having occur-
A
red in respect of foreign ship flying foreign flag at a place 232 nautical
miles away from India, and as such, outside the territorial waters of
India the Act would not be applicable; and that even if it was applic-
able it would not amount to a shipping casualty as envisaged in part
XII of the Act; and lastly that even assuming that chapter XII applied,
the complaint could not have been filed by the Principal Officer in the . B
~court of the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras-8 under
section 363 of the Act.
Mr. K. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the respondents submits
- ,.li.r that the shipping casualty having occurred within the territorial waters
of India which extended up to 200 nautical miles, the Act would be
applicable and the complaint was rightly filed under section 363 of the
Act; and that the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Crimi-
c
nal Procedure rightly refused to quash the proceedings.
Three questions, therefore, are to be decided in this appeal.
First, whether the Act would at all be applicable in the facts and D
circumstances of the case; secondly, if the Act was applicable whether
part XII of the Act would apply; and thirdly, if both the Act and part
XII were applicable whether the complaint made by the Principal
)..__Officer under section 363 of the Act would be maintainable.
Taking the first question first, the Act is one to foster the E
development and ensure the efficient maintenance of India Mercantile
- Marine in the manner best suited to serve the national interest and for
that purpose to establish a National Shipping Board and Shipping
National Fund to provide for registration of Indian ship and the law
relating to Merchant shipping. Section 2 of the Act deals with its
~~application and says: F
"(l) Unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of
this Act which apply to-
(a) any vessel which is registered in India; or
G
(b) any vessel which is required by this Act to be so
registered; or
(c) any other vessel which is owned wholly by persons to
each of whom any of the descriptions specified in clause (a)
or in clause (b) or in clause (c), as the case may be, of H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
section 21 applies, shall so apply wherever the vessel may ~
A
be.
(2) Unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of
this Act which apply to vessels other than those referred to
in sub-section (1) shall so apply only while any such vessel
B is within India, including the territorial ~aters thereof."
In the instant case the ship was not registered in India and was ~
not required by this Act to be so registered. Clause (c) refers so clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of section 21 which defines Indian ships, and says:
"For the purposes of this Act, a ship sball not be deemed to
c be an Indian ship unless owned wholly by persons to each
of whom any of the following descriptions applies:-
(a) a citizen oflndia; or
D (b) a company which satisfies the following requirements,
namely:·
(i) the principal place of business of the company is in
India;
E (ii) at least seventy-five per cent of the share capital of the
company is held by citizens of India:
·Provided that the Central Government may, by
notification in the official Gazette, alter such minimum
percentage, and where the minimum percentage is so
F altered, the altered percentage shall, as from the date of
the notification, be deemed to be substituted for the
percentage sp~cified in this sub-clause;
(iii) not less than three-fourths of the total number of
directors of the company are citizens of India;
G
(iv) the chairman of the board of directors and the manag-
ing director, if any, of the company are citizens of India; -~\
(v) the managing agents, if any, of the company are citi-
zens of India or in any case where a company is the manag-
H ing agent, the company satisfies the requirements specified
in sub-els. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). or
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEPTI. [SAIKIA, J.] 749
(c) a co-operative society which satisfies the following
A
requirements, namely:- l '
(i) the co-operative society is registered or deemed to be ,
registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or
any other law relating to co-operative societies for the time
being in force in any State, B
(ii) every individual who is a member of the co-operative
society and where any other co-operative society is a
member thereof, every individual who is a member of such
other co-operative society, is a citizen of India."
The ship was not a ship owned wholly by persons each of whom
·c
was a citizen. of India or by a company satisfying the descriptions under
clause (b) or (c). Sub-section (2) of section 2 makes the provisions of
the Act applicable to vessels other than those referred to in sub-section
(1) only while any such vessel is within India, including the territorial
waters thereof. The ship being a Panamanian ship registered in D
Panama would come within the purview of the Act only while it is
within India including the territorial waters.
This leads us to the question as to the extent of territorial waters
of India. The Territorial Waters, Continental shelf, Exclusive
Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (Act No. 80 "of E
1976) is an Act to provide for certain matters relating to the territorial
-- waters continental shelf, exclusive economic zone, and other maritime
zones of India. Section 2 of the Act defines "limit" in relation to the
territorial waters, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone
or any other maritime zones of India to mean the limit of such waters
shelf or zone with reference to the mainland of India as well as the F
individual or composite group or groups of islands constituting part of
the territory of India. Section 3 deals with sovereignty over, and limits
of, territorial waters and says:
"(1) The sovereignty of India exetends and has always
extended to the territorial waters of India (hereinafter G
\ referred to as the territorial waters) and to the seabed and
'r· subsoil underlying, and the air space over such waters.
(2) The limit of the territorial waters is the line every point
of which is at a distance of twelve nautical miles from the .
nearest point of the appropriate baseline. H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), y·
A the Central Government may whenever it considers neces-
sary so to do having regard to International Law and State
practice, alter, by notification in the Official Gazette, the
limit of the territorial waters. ·
B (4) No notification shall be issued under sub-section (3)
unless resdoblutbionsh aHpprovingf pthe !ssue ot ~.such notification -~
are passe y ot ouses o ar1mmen .
Thus sub-section (2) clearly provides that the limit of the territo-
rial waters is a line every point of which is at a distance of 12 nautical
miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline. Under Arti-
c cle 297 of the Constitution of India things of value within territorial
waters or continental shelf and resources of the exclusive economic
zone to vest in the Union. It says:
"(1) All lands, minerals and other things of value
D urtderlying the ocean within the territorial waters, or the
continental shelf, or the exclusive economic zone, of India
shall vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the
Union.
(2) All other resources of the exclusive economic
E zone of India shall also vest in the Union and be held for
the purposes of the Union.
(3) The limits of the territorial waters, the continental
shelf, the exclusive economic zone, and other maritime
zone, of India shall be such as may be specified, from time
F to time, by or under any law made by Parliament."
Sub-section (3), thus, empowers the Central Government if it
considers necessary so to do having regard to the International Law
and State practice, alter, by notification in the Official Gazette, the
limit of territorial waters. Under sub-section (4) no such notification
G shall be issued unless resolutions approving the issue of such notifica-
tion are passed by both Houses of Parliament. A proclamation was
made by the President of India published on September 30, 1967 in the ·-I
Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part III, section 2 Notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. FL/III (1)
67.
H
By a Notification of the Government of India dated 15th
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEPTI. [SAIKIA, J.] 751
January, 1977 the exclusive economic zone of India has been extended
upto a distance of 200 nautical miles into the sea from shore and other A
maritime zones, 1976 under the 40th Constitution Amendment Act,
1976.
The concepts of territorial waters, continental shelf and exclu-
sive economic zone are different concepts and the proclamation of B
exclusive economic zone to the limit of 200 nautical miles into the sea
from the shore baseline would in no way extend the limit of territorial
waters which extends to 12 nautical miles measured from the appro-
priate baseline. The submission that territorial waters extends to the
limit of 200 nautical miles by virtue of the notification extending exclu-
sive economic zone to 200 nautical miles has, therefore, to be rejected. C
Admittedly the ship (M.V. Eamaco) at the time of the casualty was at
a place beyond the territorial waters of India and even the exclusive
economic zone of India. If this be the position, the ship would not be
covered by the provisions of section 2 of the Act and consequently the
provisions of the Act would not apply to the instant casualty.
D
Taking the second question it is obvious that the Act itself having
not been applicable Chapter XII being a part of the Act will also not be
applicable. This Chapter deals with investigations and inquiries and
contain sections 357 to 389. Section 357 defines "coasts" to include the
coasts of creeks and tidal rivers. Section 358 deals with shipping
casualties and report thereof and says: E
-- "(1) For the purpose of investigations and inquiries under
this Part, a shipping casualty shall be deemed to occur
when-
(a) on or near the coasts of India, any ship is lost, F
abandoned, stranded or materially damaged;
(b) on or near the coasts of India, any ship causes loss of
material damage to any other ship;
(c) any loss of life ensues by reason of any casualty hap- G
pening to or on board any ship on or near the coasts of
India;
(d) in any place, any such loss, abandonment, stranding,
material damage or casualty as above mentioned occurs to
or on board any Indian ship and any competent witness H ·
thereof is found in India;
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
(e) any Indian ship is lost or is supposed to have been lost
A and any evidence is obtainable in India as to the circums-
tance~ under which she proceeded to sea or was last heard
of.
(2) In \the cases mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
B sub-se~tion (1), the master, pilot, harbour master or other
1
person ,in charge of the ship, or (where two ships are con-
cerned) in charge of each ship at the time of the shipping
casualty, and
in the cases mentioned in clause (d) of sub-section
(1), where the master of the ship concerned or (except in
c the case of a loss) where the ship concerned proceeds to
any place in India from the place where the shipping casu-
alty has occurred, the master of the ship,
shall, on arriving in India, give immediate notice of
D the shipping casualty to the officer appointed in this behalf
by the Central Government."
Clause (d) envisages shipping casualty in any place but occurring
to or on board any Indian ship whether the Master of the ship con-
cerned (except in the case of a loss) where the ship concerned proceeds ___.J__
E to any place in India from the place where the shipping casualty of the
ship has occurred, the Master of the ship. Thus this provision will not
cover the ship. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that the cas-
ualty in the instant case would not be a shipping casualty as envisaged
in section 358. Subsequent sections, namely, 359, 360, 361 and 362,
-
relate to shipping casualties as envisaged in section 358.
F
The impugned complaint was ex facie made under section 363 of ~
the Act which deals with power of Central Government to direct
inquiry into the charges ·of incompetency or misconduct, it says:
"(1) If the Central Government has reason to believe that
G there are grounds for charging any master, mate or
engineer with incompetency or misconduct, otherwise than
in the course of a formal investigation into shipping cas- ~
ualty, the Central Government.
(a) if the master, mate or engineer holds a certificate.
H under this Act, in any case;
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEPTI. [SAIKIA, J.] 753
(b) if the master, mate or engineer holds a certificate
A
under the Jaw of any country outside India, in any case
where the incompetency or misconduct has occurred on
board an Indian ship;
may transmit a statement of the case to any court having
jurisdiction under section 361 which is at or nearest to the B
place where it may be convenient for the parties and
witnesses to attend, and may direct that court to make an
inquiry into that charge.
(2) Before commencing the inquiry, the court shall cause
the master, mate or engineer so charged to be furnished C
with a copy of the statement transmitted by the Central
Government ."
From the above provisions it appears that section 359 envisages
the officers referred to in sub-section (2) of section 358. Receiving the
information that a shipping casualty has occurred and reporting in D
writing the information to the Centr.al Government and his proceeding
to make a preliminary inquiry into the casualty and sending a report
thereof to the Central Government or such other ai1thority as may be
\... appointed by it in that behalf. Under section 360 thf. officer, whether
~e has made a preliminary inquiry or not, may, and, where the Central
Government so directs, shall make an application to the court E
empowered under section 361 requesting it to make a formal investiga-
- tion into any shipping casualty and the court shall thereupon make
such investigation. Thus the officer himself may or when directed by
the Central Government shall make an application to the court re-
questing it to make a formal investigation into any shipping casualty.
· . Section 361 empowers the court to make a formal investigation under F
~art XII. A Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered
in this behalf by the Central Government and a Metropolitan Magis-
trate shall have jurisdiction to make formal investigation into any ship-
ping casualty under Part XII. What has to be noted in this section is
that the court on an application of the officer makes a formal investiga-
tion into shipping casualties and not a preliminary inquiry which could G
\.. have been done by the officer referred to in sub-section (2) of section
[-358, and under section 359 send a report to the Central Government.
Section 360 also envisages making of application to court by the officer
whether he had made preliminary inquiry or not, requesting it to make
formal investigation into any shipping casualty. Thus under section
361 what is being envisaged is a formal investigation into a shipping H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
. casualty and not a preliminary inquiry. Section 362 deals with only ~
A formal investigation and says that while making such investigation into
a shipping casualty the court may inquire, into any charge of incompe-
tency or misconduct arising, in the course of the investigation, against
any master, mate or engineer, as well as into any charge of a wrongful
act or default on his part causing the shipping casualty. Under sub-
B section (2) a statement of the case has to be furnished to the Master,
mate or Engineer. Section 362 does not envisage inquiring into any~
charge of incompetency or misconduct otherwise then in the course of
the formal investigation into a shipping casualty, Section 363 ( 1) envis-
ages the Central Government, when it has reason to believe that there
are grounds for charging any master, mate or engineer with incompe- -~
tency ormisconduct, otherwise. than in the course ofa formal investi-
c gation into shipping casualty, (b) if he holds a certificate under the law
of any country outside India, in any case where the incompetency or
misconduct has occurred on board an Indian ship, and the transmitting "r---
of the statement of the case to any court having jurisdiction under
section 361 where it may be convenient for the parties and witnesses to
D attend, and the Central Government may direct that court to make an
inquiry into that charge. Under clause (a) the Central Government
may exercise the power if the Master, mate or Engineer polds a certifi-
cate under the Act, in any case. Thus under this section the Central
Government must have reason to believe that there are grounds for ·
charging any master etc. with incompetency or misconduct, other\vise . -(
E than in the course of a formal investigation into shipping casualty, in
case of a master of a foreign ship who holds a certificate under the Act
"in any case". It also envisages the transmitting the statement of the
case to any court having a jurisdiction under section 361. The question
is what would be the meaning of the words "in any case". Would it
mean any case of shipping casualty, or it would mean any case
-
F irrespective of shipping casualty. In other words, under the above Jii..
provisions if the appellant was the master of the ship and the casualty-----,
was outside the territorial waters of India and the ship involved was a
foreign ship would the expression "in any case" cover the instant case?
If the preceding sections of Part XII dealt with only Shipping casualty,
will it be permissible to interpret the words "in any case" irrespective
G of shipping casualty and anywhere outside the territorial waters of
India and whoever is the owner of the Vessel? Will not the ejusdem J
generis rule apply? Again when the Act itself is not applicable to a~
case, can these words be given a meaning beyond the applicability of .
the Act? Verba secundum materiam subjectam intelligi nemo est qui
nesciat. There is no one who does not know that words are to be
ff understood according to their subject matter. The subject matter of
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEPTI. [SAIKIA, J.] 755
-~ Part XII is investigations and inquiries into shipping casualty. Would
A
'in any case" then mean in any case of shipping casualty? We have read
the other relevant provisions of the Act. Nemo aliquam partem recti
intelligere potest, antequam totum interum atque itrerum parlegerit. No
one can properly understand any part of a statue till he has read
through the whoie again and again: We find that Part VI of the Act
deals with certificates of officers, namely, Masters, mates and B
~Engineers, Section 76(1) provides:
"Every foreign-going Indian ship, every home-trade Indian
ship of two hundred tons gross or more when going to sea
from any port or place in india and every ship carrying
passengers between ports or places in India shall be pro- C
vided with officers duly certificated under this Act accord-
ing to the following scale, namely:
(a) in every case, with a duly certificated master;
(b) if the ship is a foreign-going ship or a home-trade D
passenger ship of one hundred and fifty tons gross or more,
with at least one officer besides the master holding a certifi-
cate not lower than that of first mate in the case of a
foreign-going ship and of mate in the case of a home-trade
passenger ship;
E
(c) if the ship is a home-trade ship, not being a passenger
- ship, of four hundred and fifty tons gross or more, with at
least one officer besides the master holding a certificate not
lower than that of mate.
(d) if the ship is a foreign-going ship and carries more than F
one mate, then with the second mate duly certificated."
Section 79 deals with examination for, and grant of, certificate.
Section 82 provides that a note of all orders made for cancelling,
suspending, altering or otherwise affecting any certificate of compe-
tency, in pursuance of the powers contained in this Act, shall be G
\entered on the copy of the certificate kept under section 81. Section 87
{empowers the Central Government to make rules, inter alia, to (f)
prescribe the circumstances or cases if which certificates of compe-
tency may be cancelled or suspended.
Section 363 of the Act does not refer to Part VI and the rules for H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
suspension or cancellation of certificates. This would be consistent ~
A with the view that section 363 confines itself to cases of misconduct or
incompetency associated with a shipping casualty.
Assuming that it covers a case of a foreign ship on high seas, it
would only be to make an inquiry into that charge and not into the
B shipping casualty itself.
The question then arises, as has been submitted by Mr. Krish- -~
nanmrthy Iyer, when the entire Act is not applicable to there instant
casualty would it be consistent with the extent of applicability of the
Act to pick up three words, namely, "in any case" and apply it to the ""- "
prejudice of the appellant. Mr Lahiri submits that the certificate of
c competency issued under the Act by the appropriate authorities under
part VI are valuable cetificates and if the holder of such a certificate of
competency issued under the provisions of Part VI is alleged to have ~
committed misconduct or acts of incompetency there is no reason why
an inquiry into that misconduct or incompetency cannot be ordered by
D the Central Government to a court competent to exercise jurisdiction
under section 361 of the Act.
Section 363 does not envisage the court acting on a statement
transmitted by the Central Government to conduct a formal investiga-
tion into the shipping casualty but only the courts' making an inquiry --\
E into the charge of incompetency or misconduct. Section 364 provides
-
giving of opportunity to the person to make defence. Section 365 em-
powers the court to regulate its proceedings. Section 369 provides that
the court shall, in the case of all investigations or inquiries under this
Part, transmit to the Central Government a full report or its conclu-
sions which it has arrived at together with the evidence. Under sub-
F section (2) of that section where the investigation or inquiry affects . ......._
master or an officer of a ship other than an Indian ship who holds a ----,
certificate under the law of any counrty outside India, the Central
Government may tansmit a copy of the report together with the evi-
dence to the proper authority in that country. Section 370 deals with
power of court as to certificates granted by Central Government. A
G certificate can be cancelled or suspended under clause (a) by a court
holding formal investigation and under clause (b) by a court holding / j
inquiry under this part into the conduct of the master, mate or en------<.
gineer if the court finds that he is incompetent or has been guilty of any
gross act of drunkenness, tyranny or other misconduct or in a case of
collision has failed to render such assistance or gave such information
H as is required by section 348. Under sub-section (3), where the court
SUBHASH KUMAR v. MERCANTILE MARINE DEPTI. [SAIKIA, J.) 757
' ~cancels or suspends a certificate, the court shall. forward it to the
A
Central Government together with the report which it is required by
this Part to transmit to it. Thus, this section deals with power of the
court while holding a formal investigation into a shipping casualty
under clause (a) and while holding an inquiry into the conduct of the
master, mate or engineer i.e. otherwise than while holding a formal
investigation into shipping casualty. If the expression "in any case" is B
)...__interpreted to cover a foreign ship by a foreign master but holding an
Indian cerificate having a shipping casualty outside the territorial
waters sections 363 and 370(b) may be applicable. If on the other hand
the words "in any case" is not allowed to be interpreted to include
such· a master of such a ship and in such a casualty it may not be
covered.
c
The question then is whether the instant complaint can be
~ construed as a statement of the Central Government as envisaged in
section 363.· One of the requisites of section 363 is that the Central
Government must have reason to believe that there are grounds for
charging any master etc. with incompetency or misconduct; and such D
reason to believe must have been arrived at otherwise than in the
course of a formal investigation into the shipping casualty and it is the
Central Government who may transmit the statement of a case to a
~court having jurisdiction under section 361. We have to examine
whether the complaint is ex facie under section 363. It nowhere
mentions that the Central Government had such reason to believe. It E
nowhere mentions that it was a transmission of the statement of a case
- t 1 the court by the Central Government. It also nowhere mentions that
the reason to believe had been found otherwise than in the course of a
formal investigation into the shipping casualty. On the other hand in
para 2 it says that the complainant is the Principal Officer who is
1 competent person appointed "under the Act to complain about the F
~negligence of the accused. There is no doubt that he is not empowered
under section 363. In para 6 the complaint says that the court under
section 363 has got powers to make an inquiry into the charges of
incompetency or misconduct of the accused and para 8 mentions: "The
inquiry so as to cancel the certificate of the competency of the master
namely the accused which has been granted by the Central Govern- G
ment may be recommended under this Act after holding the above said
_., T inquiry and thus render justice." Therefore, prima facie the complaint
does not disclose the ingredients required under section 363.
We enquired of the respondents as to whether there have been
earlier instances of such an inquiry having ever been made; and the H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
-~
A answer is in the negative. We feel that had such interpretation been
given earlier the Act being an old one of 1958, some instances ought to
have been available.
is
However, the instant appeal from an order of the High Court
refusing to quash the.complaint and the proceedings. Quashing of the
B
complaint could have been done, if taken on its face vallle it failed to
disclose any ingredient of the offence. ~
The High Court found as fact that the appellant had two certifi-
cates issued under section 78 of the Act from the Director General of
Shipping, Calcutta and Bombay respectively. The High Court wr-
c rectly Qbserved that section 363 enables the Central Government to
transmit a case to the court which has jurisdiction under section 361 to
make an inquiry against master, mate or engineer into the charges for
incompetency or misconduct otherwise than in the course of formal ·'r·
investigation into shipping casualties but the High Court failed to
notice that the complainant himself had no power under section 363.
D
High Court has not considered the extent of applicability of the Act
and whether all ingredients required under section 363 were satisfied
in the impugned complaint. ·
We accordingly set aside the Judgment of the High Court, quash
the complaint and the proceedings before the 14th Metropolitan
E Magistrate, Egmore, Madras-8, but make it clear that it shall still be
open for the Central Government to act under s. 363 of the Act
according to law if it so decides. Appeal allowed.
R.S.S. Appeal allowed.
·~
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Merchant Shipping Act"Sign in to search