DEVSHI BHANJI KHONA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C."). Prayer in the petition is to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2745 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam.

(2.) Brief allegations in the complaint are the following: complainant, Union of India, is represented by the Assistant Director (Safety), Inspectorate of Dock Safety, Cochin. According to the averments in the complaint, complainant is the notified inspector of the dock safety for the Port of Cochin and therefore competent to file the complaint under Sections 3, 4(i) and 17(2) of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"). The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1990 (in short, "the Regulations") have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 21 of the Act. 1st accused is a firm carrying on business as owner's agent at Cochin Port. Activity of the 1st accused is "dock work" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. 2nd accused is the partner of the 1st accused firm and as such, responsible for the offences committed by the firm.

(3.) Petitioners/accused contended that they were only local steamer agents of a foreign vessel. The vessel was bound from Port of Kakkinada to Port of Barbara in Somalia carrying cargo of rice. Enroute to Somalia, the vessel came to Cochin Port outer anchorage for repairs. Petitioners were the appointed agents for completing the port and customs formalities for bringing the vessel to Cochin. While the vessel was at Cochin Port for repairs, it was arrested by the Bombay High Court on 13.10.2006 in an Admiralty Suit bearing No.2958 of 2006. The suit was filed by the shipper/exporter of the cargo carried in the vessel. Due to some disputes with their charterers, they approached the Bombay High court and got the vessel arrested. Plaintiffs in the suit wanted their cargo of rice to be discharged at Cochin and transshipped to another vessel. In fact, petitioners/accused had no role in discharging and transshipping the cargo of rice from the said vessel at Cochin. Vessel was not actually bound to Cochin and did not come to Cochin for discharging the cargo. Discharge operations were not envisaged when the petitioners took up the agency work of the vessel.