- (1.) These appeals have been heard together as they involve common questions of fact and law and this judgment will dispose of all of them. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeals are as under : In the month of July 1984, Coast Guard Ship "Vikram" intercepted and seized a number of foreign vessels (trawlers), which were operating on permits granted under Section 5 of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 ("Act for short) to fish in the maritime zones of India, on the allegation that they were fishing in a depth of less than 40 fathoms of water in contravention of the terms and conditions of the permits. For the alleged contravention the Companies which owned the vessels and their Managing Directors as well the Companies which had chartered them and their Managing Directors were prosecuted before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay on complaints filed by S. D. Baijal (the Respondent No. 1 in all these appeals, the Commander of "Vikram".) The prosecutions ended in conviction of the owners of the vessels and their Managing Directors and acquittal of the Charterer-Companies and their Managing Directors. Besides, in some of those cases the vessels were also ordered to be confiscated.
(2.) Against their convictions and the orders of confiscation of the vessels the owners and their Managing Directors filed separate appeals and the Respondent No. 1, in his turn, filed appeals challenging the acquittal of the Charterer-Companies and their Managing Directors. The High Court dismissed the appeals preferred at the instance of the owners of the vessels but allowed the appeals of Respondent No. 1 and convicted and sentenced the Charterer-Companies and their Managing Directors. The above orders of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court against the Charterers and their Managing Directors are under challenge in these appeals.
(3.) Mr. Adhyaru, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, did not assail the concurrent finding of the learned Courts below that the vessels were fishing in a depth of less than 40 fathoms of water in contravention of the terms and conditions of the permit. He, however strenuously argued that having regard to the admitted fact that the appellants had given clear instructions to the masters of the ship, in accordance with Section 5 (6) of the Act, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the conditions of the permits, the High Court was not at all justified in upsetting the judgment of the trial Court so far as the appellants were concerned. He contended that when the vessels were on high sea it was impossible for the Charterers to control their movements and, therefore, if the masters of the ships violated their express command not to fish in the prohibited depth, only the owners of the ships would be liable for the contravention and not the appellants as Charterers. To buttress his contention he pressed into service the following findings recorded by the learned Magistrate while acquitting the appellants : "Shri Baijal P. W. No. 1 in para 36 of the evidence has admitted that there is no way to prevent contravention of rule or condition of the permit. In para 37 of the evidence he has admitted that charterers have no physical control over the trawlers when they are on the High Sea. The charterer had asked the masters not to commit any breach of rule or condition of the permit. Beyond this charterer could do nothing.;