ENRICA LEXIE Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On 15.2.2012, two fishermen on a fishing vessel by name St. Antony were shot dead. It was alleged that the assailants were on board of a vessel by name MT Enrica Lexie', which is the first petitioner, owned by the second petitioner. Basing upon the First Information Statement a case as Crime No. 2 of 2012 of Coastal Police Station, Neendakara, for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Consequently, the first respondent was intercepted by Coast Guard during her continued voyage and brought to Kochi and anchored. Subsequently, two security men on board the ship were arrested. After obtaining a search warrant from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kollam, the vessel was thoroughly searched. Weapons and other connected articles were seized by the investigating officer. But the vessel was not allowed to leave the port. In the meanwhile, three Admiralty suits were instituted. As ordered by this Court, in M.F.A. 35/2012 (Admiralty)a sum of Rupees three crores and ten lakhs were deposited before the Registrar General. But no sanction was accorded to sale the ship from Cochin Port limits. According to the petitioners, the respondents are withholding permission for sail of the vessel without any rhyme or reason. With these pleadings, the petitioners sought for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order directing to grant permission for sailing of the first petitioner vessel and her master to leave and proceed her voyage.

(2.) THE first respondent, on 5.3.2012 filed a statement that the investigation is not completed since the investigation could not be conducted for a period of ten days due to the non-cooperation of the first petitioner and that the vessel could be searched only after obtaining warrant from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam on 2.3.2012 and that the Forensic examination of the fire arms and other items is only progressing and the report would be received within fourteen days and that only thereafter, it could be decided whether the master of the ship is to be implicated and therefore, the first petitioner shall not be allowed to continue the voyage.

(3.) ON behalf o the 4th respondent, a statement is filed stating that the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai and Mercantile Marine Department have no objection to release the vessel as it was felt that the vessel need not be held any further for preliminary investigation conducted by the first respondent since all evidence from the vessel have been taken. The 4th respondent further stated that the first petitioner may be released on condition that the second petitioner shall present Master/Crew/Security Guards of the first petitioner before any competent authority or court in India in order to pursue the investigation further, if so required, at the cost of the second petitioner.