Govinda Menon, J - (1.)The Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned Sessions Judge of East Tanjore in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1946 on his file. The respondents had been convicted by the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Negapatam, of an offence punishable under Rule 84 (vi) of the Defence of India Rules in that they contravened the provisions of Rule 84 (iv) of the same enactment. On appeal, the learned Judge holding that the Customs Union agreement between the Government of India and the Governor- General of the French Establishments in India has not been proved properly, concluded that the respondents were entitled to acquittal and accordingly directed the same.
(2.)So far as the facts are concerned, there is no complication. On the 10 October, 1945, at about 8-30 p.m., when the respondents were carrying by sea bundles of piecegoods in a catamaran bound for Jaffna, a party of Customs officials, including P.Ws. 1 and 2 sighted the craft some distance east of the Kodikkarai lighthouse, chased the catamaran and seized the goods. According to the prose-cution the respondents were exporting cloth from India in contravention of the Government of India Notification No. 91 CW 1/44, dated the 26 August, 1944.
(3.)Two points were raised on behalf of the respondents in their appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The first of them was that the catamaran was not within the Indian territorial waters and therefore the trial Court at Negapatam had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned Judge found that it was not proved that the catamaran was within the territorial waters of British India and so held that the sailing craft was intercepted and seized only on the high seas. On this finding, according to the learned Judge, if the matter had stood there, the Court which tried the respondents had no jurisdiction to do so.