Ranjit Narayanan and B.S. Teeka Represented by Mr. Yunus J. Shichandler Vs. Kumarasamy Alfred - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]orderc.t. selvam, j.1. the petitioners/a1 and a2 who are officer in-charge and managing director of a company by name m/s. executive ship management p. ltd., seek to quash the proceedings in c.c. no. 6066 of 2006 pending before the learned xvii metropolitan magistrate, saidapet, chennai.2. in such case, the respondent has sought relief under section 145 of the merchant shipping act, 1958. the material features of the complaint are as follows:3. the complainant submits that he has entered into a contract with m/s. executive ship management private ltd., at chennai to work as a motorman for m.t. jogran, (norwegian flag ship) for a period of eight months. as per contract the complainant joined on 15.01.2006 at 'sikka' port, gujarat state. monthly salary as per contract is 1266 us dollars per month equal to rs. 60,000/- (rupees sixty thousand only).4. the complainant submits that on 29.03.2006 at 6.00 p.m., the complainant was called and terminated without any valid reason. at that time, the complainant was in 'jorf lasfar' port in morocco. no prior notice was given to complainant about termination. the terms and conditions of the agreement were not followed. no log entry procedure was followed by master for termination. as per the contract, the termination is not permissible. the complainant is entitled to get eight months wages. during the period from 15.01.2006 to 29.03.2006, the complainant had worked overtime for 393 hours. the complainant is entitled for extra wages for additional overtime.5. the complainant submits further that the complainant was asked to knock off from engine room watch at 18.00 hrs. on 29.03.2006, and for pack up and prepare for signing off on 30.03.2006. till midnight, wages was not settled and the certificates were not returned. the master of the ship is 'accused no. 3', told the complainant to receive payment from mumbai office. the complainant was intimidated saying that he would be thrown over board, if he demands wages payment on board. then the complainant was illegally detained at his cabin by tying him with rope. then the complainant was signed off from suez, egypt on 08.04.2006.6. the complainant submits further that the complainant's contract is to be terminated only on 15.09.2006. the accused issued a 'wages account' on 08.04.2006 of port suez, egypt. in that wages account, they have deducted 659.32 u.s. dollars in 'others' head. such deduction is illegal and unjust. the complainant is entitled for wages for a period of further 51/2 months including overtime and leave wages. that amount has to be paid by the accused to the complainant.7. the cause of action for this complaint arose at t. nagar where the office of the accused is situated and from where the contract was executed and the accused resides within the limits of r1 police station and the jurisdiction of this hon'ble court and therefore for his pending wages, this hon'ble court has competent jurisdiction to try this complaint summarily as per under section 145 of the merchant shipping act 1958.8. the complainant submits that the complainant issued notice to the accused on 05.05.2006 calling them to compensate the complainant. but notice was replied formally. no remedy was given to the complainant.3. lower court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused.4. the short ground taken on behalf of the petitioners is that it is an undisputed fact that the vessel in which the respondent served and of which he was off-loaded at morocco on 29.03.2006 was a norwegian vessel. such was a vessel to which the act did not apply.5. section 21 of the merchant shipping act, 1958 reads as follows:21. indian ships.- for the purposes of this act, a ship shall not be deemed to be an indian ship unless owned wholly by persons to each of whom [any] of the following descriptions applies: a a citizen of india; orb a company or a body established by or under any central or state act which has its principal place of business in india; orc a co-operative society which 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. the application of the act is informed in section 2 which reads as follows: 2. application of act.-1 unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this act apply to-a any vessel which is registered in india; orb any vessel which is required by this act to be so registered; orc any other vessel which is owned wholly by persons to each of whom any of the descriptions specified in the clause(a) or in clause(b) or in clause(c), as the case may be, of section 21 applies,d shall so apply wherever the vessel may be.1 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 is within india, including the territorial waters thereof. 6. the contention is that the vessel in question is not registered in india, is not a vessel which is required by the act to be so registered and not a indian vessel as defined in section 21 of the act and as such, the merchant shipping act would not apply thereto. the action for services rendered on a foreign vessel could not be adjudicated upon under provisions of section 145 of the act where the act was not applicable to such vessel. the only exception is that provided under sub-section 2 of section 2. the application of the exception does not arise since the norwegian vessel in question is neither within india nor within the territorial waters thereof.7. the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the proceedings initiated under section 145 of the act were valid, placing reliance on a decision of this court in interaccess marine bunkering ltd. v. k.m. allauddin and ors. 2009 (3) ctc 611.8. i have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.9. in the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned judge of this court has traced the history of admiralty jurisdiction, and inter alia, drawn the distinction between a maritime claim and a maritime lien. the learned judge was dealing with rival claims on the sale proceeds of a foreign vessel and a question such as the one presently before us did not arise for consideration. section 2(2) of the act makes clear that even where the act is made applicable to vessels other than those falling within section 2(1), such application would take effect only when the vessel is within india including the territorial waters thereof. to be otherwise applicable, the act should make specific provision. we find no such specific provision in section 145 of the act. thus, section 145 of the act would have no application in the given circumstances.10. given the above position, these criminal original petition for quash would have to be allowed. accordingly, the same shall stand allowed. the proceedings in c.c. no. 6066 of 2006 on the file of the learned xvii metropolitan magistrate, saidapet, chennai shall stand quashed. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Judgment:
ORDER

C.T. Selvam, J.

1. The petitioners/A1 and A2 who are Officer In-charge and Managing Director of a company by name M/s. Executive Ship Management P. Ltd., seek to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 6066 of 2006 pending before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. In such case, the respondent has sought relief under Section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The material features of the complaint are as follows:

3. The Complainant submits that he has entered into a contract with M/s. Executive Ship Management Private Ltd., at Chennai to work as a MOTORMAN for M.T. JOGRAN, (Norwegian Flag Ship) for a period of eight months. As per contract the Complainant joined on 15.01.2006 at 'Sikka' Port, Gujarat State. Monthly salary as per contract is 1266 US Dollars per month equal to Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only).

4. The Complainant submits that on 29.03.2006 at 6.00 p.m., the Complainant was called and terminated without any valid reason. At that time, the Complainant was in 'Jorf Lasfar' Port in Morocco. No prior notice was given to Complainant about termination. The terms and conditions of the agreement were not followed. No Log entry procedure was followed by master for termination. As per the contract, the termination is not permissible. The Complainant is entitled to get eight months wages. During the period from 15.01.2006 to 29.03.2006, the Complainant had worked overtime for 393 hours. The Complainant is entitled for extra wages for additional overtime.

5. The Complainant submits further that the Complainant was asked to knock off from engine room watch at 18.00 hrs. on 29.03.2006, and for pack up and prepare for signing off on 30.03.2006. Till midnight, wages was not settled and the certificates were not returned. The master of the ship is 'Accused No. 3', told the Complainant to receive payment from Mumbai Office. The Complainant was intimidated saying that he would be thrown over board, if he demands wages payment on board. Then the Complainant was illegally detained at his cabin by tying him with rope. Then the Complainant was signed off from Suez, Egypt on 08.04.2006.

6. The Complainant submits further that the Complainant's contract is to be terminated only on 15.09.2006. The Accused issued a 'Wages Account' on 08.04.2006 of Port Suez, Egypt. In that Wages Account, they have deducted 659.32 U.S. dollars in 'Others' head. Such deduction is illegal and unjust. The Complainant is entitled for wages for a period of further 51/2 months including Overtime and leave wages. That amount has to be paid by the Accused to the Complainant.

7. The cause of action for this Complaint arose at T. Nagar where the office of the Accused is situated and from where the contract was executed and the Accused resides within the limits of R1 Police Station and the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and therefore for his pending wages, this Hon'ble Court has competent Jurisdiction to try this Complaint summarily as per under Section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958.

8. The Complainant submits that the Complainant issued notice to the Accused on 05.05.2006 calling them to compensate the Complainant. But notice was replied formally. No remedy was given to the Complainant.

3. Lower Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused.

4. The short ground taken on behalf of the petitioners is that it is an undisputed fact that the vessel in which the respondent served and of which he was off-loaded at Morocco on 29.03.2006 was a Norwegian vessel. Such was a vessel to which the Act did not apply.

5. Section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 reads as follows:

21. Indian Ships.- For the purposes of this Act, a ship shall not be deemed to be an Indian ship unless owned wholly by persons to each of whom [any] of the following descriptions applies:

a a citizen of India; or

b a company or a body established by or under any Central or State Act which has its principal place of business in India; or

c a co-operative society which 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.

The application of the Act is informed in Section 2 which reads as follows:

2. Application of Act.-

1 Unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this Act apply to-

a any vessel which is registered in India; or

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 the clause(a) or in clause(b) or in clause(c), as the case may be, of Section 21 applies,

d shall so apply wherever the vessel may be.

1 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 is within India, including the territorial waters thereof.

6. The contention is that the vessel in question is not registered in India, is not a vessel which is required by the Act to be so registered and not a Indian vessel as defined in Section 21 of the Act and as such, the Merchant Shipping Act would not apply thereto. The action for services rendered on a foreign vessel could not be adjudicated upon under provisions of Section 145 of the Act where the Act was not applicable to such vessel. The only exception is that provided under Sub-section 2 of Section 2. The application of the exception does not arise since the Norwegian vessel in question is neither within India nor within the territorial waters thereof.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Act were valid, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Interaccess Marine Bunkering Ltd. v. K.M. Allauddin and Ors. 2009 (3) CTC 611.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

9. In the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the learned Judge of this Court has traced the history of admiralty jurisdiction, and inter alia, drawn the distinction between a maritime claim and a maritime lien. The learned Judge was dealing with rival claims on the sale proceeds of a foreign vessel and a question such as the one presently before us did not arise for consideration. Section 2(2) of the Act makes clear that even where the act is made applicable to vessels other than those falling within Section 2(1), such application would take effect only when the vessel is within India including the territorial waters thereof. To be otherwise applicable, the act should make specific provision. We find no such specific provision in Section 145 of the Act. Thus, Section 145 of the Act would have no application in the given circumstances.

10. Given the above position, these Criminal Original Petition for quash would have to be allowed. Accordingly, the same shall stand allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 6066 of 2006 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.