LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Even though the vessel from which an offence was taken place by the occupants of the vessel, vessel itself is not involved in the murder offence, on assurance of surrendering the accused persons when ever required by the court for trail purpose, the vessel was set free to take its voyage further with all it’s cargo as it is.Scope of sec.102 of Cr.p.c is specifically states that unless the object is entangled with the offence, it can not be seized. While taking up its position as set out in the statement handed over to us on behalf of the Republic of Italy, it is expressly stated that the Republic of Italy is agreeable to give assurance to this Court that if the presence of these 4 Marines is required by any Court or in response to any summons issued by any Court or lawful authority, the Republic of Italy shall ensure their presence before the appropriate Court or such authority. This assurance is subject to the right of the persons summoned to challenge the same before a competent court in India. In our view, the assurance given by the Republic of Italy to secure the presence of these four Marines, namely, Voglino Renato (Seargeant), Andronico Massimo (1st Corporal), Fontano Antonio (3rd Corporal) and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), if required by any court or lawful authority, fully meets the ends of justice and protects wholly the interest of the Government of Kerala. In no way it affects the Government of Kerala’s right to proceed with the investigation and prosecute the offenders. 26. Having regard to the above, we dispose of the present Appeal by the following order :- (1) Subject to the compliances by the appellants as noted below, the Government of Kerala and its authorities shall allow the first appellant vessel to commence her voyage :- (a) The Master of the first appellant vessel, the Managing Director of the owner of the first appellant vessel and the Managing Director of the shipping agent, namely, James Mackintosh & Co. Pvt. Ltd shall furnish their undertakings to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of the Kerala High Court that six crew members, namely, Vitelli Umberto (Master), Noviello Carlo (Master SN), James Mandley Samson (Chief Officer), Sahil Gupta (2nd Officer), Fulbaria (Seaman) and Tirumala Rao (Ordinary Sea Man), on receipt of summons/notice from any court or by Investigating Officer or lawful authority shall present themselves within five weeks from the date of the receipt of such summons/notice and shall produce the first appellant vessel, if required by any court or the Investigating Officer or any other lawful authority, within seven weeks from the receipt of such summons/notice. (b) The second appellant shall execute a bond in the sum of Rupees Three Crores before the Registrar General of the Kerala High Court for production of the first appellant vessel and securing the presence of the above six crew members as and when called upon by any court or the Investigating Officer or any other lawful authority. (2) The assurance given by the Republic of Italy that if the presence of the four Marines, namely, Voglino Renato (Seargeant), Andronico Massimo (1st Corporal), Fontano Antonio (3rd Corporal) and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), is required by any court or lawful authority or Investigating Officer, the Republic of Italy shall ensure their presence before such court or lawful authority or Investigating Officer is accepted. Such assurance shall, however, not affect the right of the above four Marines to challenge such summons/notice issued by any court or Investigating Officer or any other lawful authority before a competent court in India. 27. It is clarified that the investigation into Crime No. 2/2012 registered at Neendakara Coastal Police Station shall not be an impediment for commencement of the voyage by the first appellant vessel subject to port and customs clearances in accordance with law and upon furnishing the undertakings and bond as noted above. 28. The four Marines, namely, Voglino Renato (Seargeant), Andronico Massimo (1st Corporal), Fontano Antonio (3rd Corporal) and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), may sail on the vessel together with all equipments, arms and ammunitions on board the first appellant vessel other than those already seized by the Investigating Officer. 29. No costs.




                                                                  REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4167       OF 2012
              (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11942 of 2012)


        M.T. ENRICA LEXIE & ANR.                 Appellant (s)


                                 VERSUS


        DORAMMA & ORS.                                Respondent(s)


                             J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T




        R.M. LODHA, J.




                Leave granted.


        2.      We have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel
        for the appellants,  Mr.  Goolam  E.  Vahanvati,  learned  Attorney
        General of India for respondent No. 6, and Mr.  Gopal  Subramaniam,
        learned senior counsel  for  respondent  Nos.  2  and  3.   Despite
        service, respondent No. 1 has not chosen to appear.
        3.      The vessel – M.T. Enrica  Lexie  –  and                 M/s
        Dolphin Tanker SRL (owner of the vessel) are in appeal aggrieved by
        the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court  on
        April 3, 2012 whereby the Division Bench set aside the judgment and
        order of the Single Judge dated March 29, 2012.
        4.      The controversy arises in this way.  On February  15,  2012
        an First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at Neendakara  Coastal
        Police Station by one Fredy, owner of the Indian registered fishing
         boat St. Antony. It was alleged in the FIR that at 4.30 p.m. (IST)
        on that day while the fishing boat St. Antony was  sailing  through
        the Arabian Sea, incriminate firing was opened by an Italian Ship -
        M.T. Enrica Lexie (first appellant). As a result of firing from the
        first appellant vessel, two innocent fishermen who  were  on  board
        the fishing boat St. Antony died and the  other  occupants  of  the
        boat saved their lives as they were lying in reclining position  on
        the deck of the boat.  On the basis of FIR, Crime No. 2/2012  under
        Section 302  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  (IPC)  was  registered.
        Neendakara Coastal Police Station also informed the matter  to  the
        Coast Guards and,  accordingly,  the  first  appellant  vessel  was
        intercepted and brought to the Port of Cochin on February 16, 2012.
        Two Marines who allegedly committed the offence  were  arrested  on
        February 19, 2012.
        5.      It is not necessary to go into details of the investigation
        into the above crime.  Suffice it to  say   that  on  February  26,
        2012, the concerned Circle Inspector of Police issued a  letter  to
        the Master of the first appellant vessel directing that the  vessel
        shall not continue her voyage without his prior sanction.
        6.      The stand of the first appellant is that  she  was  on  way
        from Singapore to Egypt having 24 crew members on board. The vessel
        also had on board  six  Marines  personnel,  i.e.,  Naval  Military
        Protection Squad              (NMP  Squad).   The   NMP  Squad  was
        deployed on board the first appellant vessel by the  Government  of
        Republic of Italy due to severe threat of Somalian pirates  in  the
        Arabian Sea.  The second appellant - owner of the  vessel  –  is  a
        member of the Italian Ship Owner's Confederation. The NMP Squad was
        on board to ensure efficient protection to the  vessel  because  of
        piracy and armed  plundering  as  per  the  agreement  between  the
        Ministry of Defence - Naval Staff  and  the  Italian  Ship  Owner's
        Confederation. The Master of the ship is in no way responsible  for
        choices  relating  to  operations  involved  in  countering  piracy
        attacks, if any; the Master of the ship cannot interfere  with  the
        military activities undertaken by the  NMP Squad for the defence of
        the vessel, its crew and cargo in the face of  pirate  attacks  and
        the  NMP Squad on board the  vessel  is  always  under  the  direct
        command of the military of Republic of Italy.
        7.      According to the appellants, although all the agencies  had
        completed their respective investigations, none of them were giving
        official clearance for the vessel to  sail  and  that  necessitated
        them  to file a Writ Petition before the High Court of  Kerala  for
        appropriate directions and permission to the first appellant vessel
        for sailing and proceeding with her voyage.
        8.      In response to the Writ  Petition,  counter  affidavit  was
        filed by the Circle Inspector.  The Single Judge, after hearing the
        parties, allowed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants,  issued
        a writ of mandamus directing the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to
        allow the first appellant vessel to commence her  voyage on certain
        conditions.


        9.      Being not satisfied with the  judgment  and  order  of  the
        Single Judge dated March 29, 2012, Doramma  (wife  of  one  of  the
        deceased fishermen), inter alia, filed Writ Appeal No. 679 of 2012.
        The  Division  Bench   of  the  Kerala  High   Court   noted   that
        investigation in the matter was not yet  complete  and  no  charge-
        sheet had been filed and now since proceedings had  been  initiated
        by the Investigating Officer under Section 102(3) of  the  Code  of
        Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Code'), the matter needed  to
        be considered by the concerned Judicial Magistrate  exercising  the
        powers under Section 457 of the Code and the Single Judge  was  not
        justified in allowing the Writ Petition and issuing the directions.
         The Division Bench, accordingly, set aside the order of the Single
        Judge and permitted the appellants to approach  the  jurisdictional
        Magistrate with an application under Section 457 of  the  Code  and
        observed that  the  concerned  Magistrate  should  dispose  of  the
        application in accordance with the  procedure  after  applying  its
        judicious mind to the facts of the case.
        10.     During the  pendency  of  the  matter  before  this  Court,
        certain events have intervened. In three  Admiralty   Suits  –  one
        filed by the present respondent No. 1 - Doramma,  the other by  the
        first informant Fredy, and the third by Abhinaya Xavier  and  Aguna
        Xavier, settlements have  taken  place  after  impleadment  of  the
        Republic of Italy as one of the parties to  the  proceedings.   The
        settlement with the present respondent No.  1  –  Doramma  and  the
        settlement with Abhinaya Xavier and  Aguna  Xavier  took  place  on
        April 24, 2012, whereas the settlement with  Fredy  took  place  on
        April 27, 2012. All three settlements took place before Lok Adalat.
         The Government of Kerala is seriously aggrieved by various clauses
        of these three settlements. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam,  learned  senior
        counsel for the Government of  Kerala,  vehemently  contended  that
        these settlements were against public policy and the  Indian  laws.
        He submitted that the Government of  Kerala  intends  to  challenge
        these settlements in  appropriate  proceedings  before  appropriate
        forum.
        11.     In the course of  the  hearing  of  this  Appeal,  an  oral
        application was made  on  behalf  of  the  Republic  of  Italy  for
        intervention.  We permitted the intervention  of  the  Republic  of
        Italy, particularly in view of the statements made  in  the  Appeal
        that the NMP Squad comprising of six  Italian  Naval  personnel  on
        board were always under the direct command of the Republic of Italy
        and the Master of the vessel could not interfere with the  military
        activities undertaken by the Naval personnel on board  the  vessel.
        The intervention by the Republic of Italy  was  also  found  by  us
        proper because of serious challenge by the Government of Kerala  to
        the three settlements entered into between the  Republic  of  Italy
        and the claimants-plaintiffs in the three Admiralty Suits.
        12.     Before we deal with the matter further,  we  may  refer  to
        Section 102 of the Code which reads as follows :



                   “102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.-

                   (1) Any police officer may seize any property  which  may
                   be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may
                   be found under circumstances which  create  suspicion  of
                   the Commission of any offence.

                   (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in
                   charge of a police station, shall  forthwith  report  the
                   seizure to that officer.

                  (3) Every police officer  acting  under  sub-section  (1)
                  shall forthwith report  the  seizure  to  the  Magistrate
                  having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such
                  that it cannot be conveniently transported to  the  Court
                  or  where  there  is  difficulty   in   securing   proper
                  accommodation for the custody of such property, or  where
                  the continued retention of the property in police custody
                  may not  be  considered  necessary  for  the  purpose  of
                  investigation, he may give custody thereof to any  person
                  on his  executing  a  bond  undertaking  to  produce  the
                  property before the Court as and  when  required  and  to
                  give effect to the further orders of the Court as to  the
                  disposal of the same:

                         Provided that where the property seized under sub-
                  section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if
                  the person entitled to the possession of such property is
                  unknown or absent and the value of such property is  less
                  than five hundred rupees, it may  forthwith  be  sold  by
                  auction under the orders of the Superintendent of  Police
                  and the provisions of sections  457  and  458  shall,  as
                  nearly as may be practicable, apply to the  net  proceeds
                  of such sale.”


        13.     The police officer in course of investigation can seize any
        property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen
        or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of  the  crime  under
        investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for
        which the police officer is  investigating  into.  A  property  not
        suspected of commission of the offence which is being  investigated
        into by the police officer cannot be seized.  Under Section 102  of
        the Code, the police officer  can  seize  such  property  which  is
        covered by Section 102(1) and no other.
        14.     After the Writ Petition was filed by the present appellants
        before the Kerala High Court, during pendency thereof on March  26,
        2012 a report under sub-section (3) of Section 102 of the Code  was
        filed by the Circle Inspector before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
        Kollam reporting to that court that the first appellant vessel  has
        been seized. To our specific question  to  Mr.  Gopal  Subramaniam,
        learned senior counsel for the Government of Kerala,   whether  the
        first appellant vessel was object of the crime or the circumstances
        have come up in the course of investigation that  create  suspicion
        of commission of any offence by the  first  appellant  vessel,  Mr.
        Gopal Subramaniam  answered  in  the  negative.                 Mr.
        Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel  for  the  Government  of
        Kerala, further stated that the detention of  the  first  appellant
        vessel was no longer required in the matter. In view  thereof,  the
        order of the Division Bench in upsetting the order  of  the  Single
        Judge has to go and we order accordingly.
        15.     The question now remains, whether the order passed  by  the
        Single Judge on March 29, 2012 can be allowed to stand as it is  or
        deserves to be modified.
        16.     Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General,  at  the
        outset, submitted that Union of India has the same position as  has
        been taken up by the Government of  Kerala.   He  referred  to  the
        short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India by P.
        Sasi Kumar,  Under Secretary to Government of  India,  Ministry  of
        Shipping. In para 6 of the said counter  affidavit,  it  is  stated
        that the material evidence  in  relation  to  the  first  appellant
        vessel itself has been collected during the preliminary inquiry for
        the purposes of Sections 358 and 359 of the Merchant Shipping  Act,
        1958.   The  FIR  lodged  against  the  accused  persons  is  being
        investigated by the competent authorities of the  State  of  Kerala
        because law and order is a State subject.
        17.     Mr. Gopal  Subramaniam,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
        Government of Kerala, had already indicated that detention  of  the
        first appellant vessel was no longer required. He did not have  any
        serious objection if the first  appellant  vessel  was  allowed  to
        commence  her  voyage.   He,  however,  sought  for  the  following
        safeguards,  viz.,  (i)  the  appellants   must   submit   to   the
        jurisdiction of the Indian court/s and they must also clarify their
        position about  settlements  in  the  Admiralty  Suits  arrived  at
        between the Republic of Italy and  the  claimants-plaintiffs;  (ii)
        for securing the presence of the six crew members, namely,  Vitelli
        Umberto (Master), Noviello Carlo (Master SN), James Mandley  Samson
        (Chief Officer),  Sahil  Gupta                      (2nd  Officer),
        Fulbaria (Seaman) and Tirumala Rao  (Ordinary  Sea  Man)  and  four
        Marines, namely, Voglino Renato (Seargeant), Andronico Massimo (1st
        Corporal), Fontano Antonio  (3rd  Corporal)  and  Conte  Alessandro
        (Corporal), an undertaking must be given by the Master of the first
        appellant vessel, the Managing Director of the owner of  the  first
        appellant vessel and the Managing Director of the  shipping  agent,
        namely, James Mackintosh & Co. Pvt. Ltd.; and (iii) it be clarified
        that  the  interest  of  the  Government  of  Kerala  shall  remain
        unaffected by the settlements arrived at between  the  Republic  of
        Italy and the claimants-plaintiffs and  the  Government  of  Kerala
        should be free to take appropriate legal  recourse  in  challenging
        these settlements.
        18.      Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  for   the
        appellants, in response  to  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.  Gopal
        Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the Government  of  Kerala,
        submitted  that  the  appellants  were  not  associated  with   the
        settlements arrived at  between  the  Republic  of  Italy  and  the
        claimants-plaintiffs in the Admiralty Suits. He also submitted that
        for securing the presence of the six  crew  members  on  board  the
        first appellant vessel, an undertaking shall be  furnished  by  the
        Master of the first appellant vessel, the Managing Director of  the
        owner of the first appellant vessel and Managing  Director  of  the
        shipping agent, namely, James Mackintosh & Co. Pvt. Ltd.   He  also
        submitted that the appellants,  in  fact,  have  submitted  to  the
        jurisdiction of the Indian courts and they maintain that  position.
        As regards, four Marines on board,  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal  submitted
        that the Marines being under the direct command of the military  of
        the Republic of Italy,  the  owner  or  the  Master  of  the  first
        appellant vessel were not in a position to give any undertaking  or
        make any statement.
        19.     Since we have permitted Republic of Italy to  intervene  in
        the matter, we wanted to know from              Mr.  Harish  Salve,
        learned senior counsel for  the  Republic  of  Italy,  whether  the
        Republic of Italy was in a position to give any assurance  to  this
        Court to secure the  presence  of  four  Marines,  namely,  Voglino
        Renato  (Seargeant),  Andronico  Massimo  (1st  Corporal),  Fontano
        Antonio (3rd Corporal) and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), as and when
        required by the  Investigating  Officer  or  any  Court  or  lawful
        authority, Mr. Harish Salve  handed  over  to  us  a  written  note
        indicating the position of the Republic of  Italy  which  reads  as
        follows :-


                 “1. The position of the  Republic  of  Italy  is  that  the
                 alleged incident  took  place  outside  Indian  territorial
                 waters and the Union of India and the State of Kerala  have
                 no jurisdiction  to  deal  with  the  matter  under  Indian
                 municipal laws, including criminal laws, as well  as  under
                 international  law;  that  the  incident  is  between   two
                 sovereign states, i.e., Republic of India and the  Republic
                 of Italy and that dispute settlement that are  provided  by
                 international law and conventions.


                 2.      The  Republic  of  Italy  filed  a  petition  under
                 Article 32 and has also challenged  the  legal  proceedings
                 initiated in Kerala by an  appropriate  proceeding  in  the
                 Kerala High Court. Without prejudice  to  its  rights  [and
                 obligations] under international law, and  its  contentions
                 of sovereign immunity including those raised in  these  two
                 petitions, and without accepting that the  actions  of  the
                 Union of India or the State of  Kerala  are  authorized  by
                 law,  the  Republic  of  Italy  is  agreeable  to  give  an
                 assurance to  the  Supreme  Court  of  India  that  if  the
                 presence of these marines is required by any  Court  or  in
                 response to any summons  issued  by  any  Court  or  lawful
                 authority,  the  Republic  of  Italy  shall  ensure   their
                 presence before an appropriate  court  or  authority.  This
                 would be subject to the right of the persons  summoned   to
                 challenge such summons/order before a  competent  court  in
                 India.


                 3.      On this assurance this Hon'ble  Court  may,  if  it
                 considers it appropriate, issue directions  in  respect  of
                 the following :-


                         (a) The vessel shall be permitted to  sail  out  of
                 India, and the marines shall sail on the  vessel  [together
                 with all equipments, arms and  ammunitions  on  board]  and
                 cross Indian territorial waters.


                 4.      This assurance should not be considered as  in  any
                 manner detracting from the stand of the Republic  of  Italy
                 that its officers are entitled to  sovereign  immunity  and
                 that proceedings in India under the Indian  municipal  laws
                 are illegal.


                 5.      If in appropriate legal proceedings [including  the
                 petition filed by the Republic of  Italy  in  this  Hon'ble
                 Court] it is declared that the  proceedings  in  India  are
                 illegal, then these assurances shall come to an end.”


        20.     In response to the above statement made by the Republic  of
        Italy, Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, submitted
        that the Union of India did  not  accept  the  correctness  of  the
        assurances made in the above statement and, in any case, it must be
        clarified that the position taken by the Republic of Italy would in
        no way prejudice the proceedings in this  Court  or  in  any  other
        Court or forum.
        21.     Mr. Gopal  Subramaniam,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
        Government of Kerala, vehemently opposed the above statement of the
        Republic of Italy and submitted that the above  statement  was  not
        acceptable to the Government of Kerala.  He  further  asserted  the
        right of the Government of Kerala to investigate into the crime and
        prosecute the offenders for the death of two fishermen.
        22.     Pertinently, Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior  counsel  for
        the Republic of Italy, also submitted that the settlements  arrived
        at between the Republic of Italy and claimants-plaintiffs could  be
        set aside by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142
        of the Constitution of India.  Mr. Harish Salve  further  submitted
        that the payments under the  settlements  have  been  made  by  the
        Republic of  Italy  to  the  claimants-plaintiffs  not  by  way  of
        compensation in the proceedings initiated by them  but  by  way  of
        goodwill and gesture.
        23.     We may make two things clear - (i) In the  present  Appeal,
        we are not directly concerned with  the  correctness,  legality  or
        validity of the settlements  arrived at  between  the  Republic  of
        Italy and claimants-plaintiffs. Having regard to certain clauses in
        the settlements, we are of the view that  insofar  as  the  present
        Appeal is concerned, these settlements deserve to be ignored and we
        do so, and (ii) The limited  question  for  consideration  in  this
        Appeal is with regard to the voyage of the first  appellant  vessel
        and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to dwell on the position
        taken up by the Republic of Italy that the  alleged  incident  took
        place outside territorial waters and the Union  of  India  and  the
        State of Kerala have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter  under
        municipal laws and the stout refutation to  that  position  by  the
        Union of India and the State of Kerala and the strong assertion  by
        the Union of India and the State of  Kerala  that  the  offence  of
        murder of two Indian citizens was committed within the  territorial
        jurisdiction of India.


        24.     Most of the safeguards sought for by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam,
        learned senior counsel for the  Government  of  Kerala,  have  been
        taken care of by the first appellant vessel and her owner. However,
        for securing the presence of four Marines, namely,  Voglino  Renato
        (Seargeant), Andronico Massimo (1st Corporal), Fontano Antonio (3rd
        Corporal) and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), some difficulty remains.


        25.     While taking up its position as set out  in  the  statement
        handed over to us on  behalf  of  the  Republic  of  Italy,  it  is
        expressly stated that the Republic of Italy is  agreeable  to  give
        assurance to this Court that if the presence of these 4 Marines  is
        required by any Court or in response to any summons issued  by  any
        Court or lawful authority, the Republic of Italy shall ensure their
        presence before the appropriate  Court  or  such  authority.   This
        assurance is subject to  the  right  of  the  persons  summoned  to
        challenge the same before a competent court in India.  In our view,
        the assurance given by the Republic of Italy to secure the presence
        of  these  four  Marines,  namely,  Voglino   Renato   (Seargeant),
        Andronico Massimo (1st Corporal), Fontano  Antonio  (3rd  Corporal)
        and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), if required by any court or lawful
        authority, fully meets the ends of justice and protects wholly  the
        interest of the Government of Kerala.  In no  way  it  affects  the
        Government of Kerala's right to proceed with the investigation  and
        prosecute the offenders.


        26.     Having regard to the  above,  we  dispose  of  the  present
        Appeal by the following order :-




                (1) Subject to the compliances by the  appellants  as  noted
                below, the Government of Kerala and  its  authorities  shall
                allow the first appellant vessel to commence her voyage :-
                   (a) The  Master  of  the  first  appellant  vessel,  the
                   Managing Director of the owner of  the  first  appellant
                   vessel and the Managing Director of the shipping  agent,
                   namely, James Mackintosh & Co. Pvt.  Ltd  shall  furnish
                   their undertakings to the satisfaction of the  Registrar
                   General of the Kerala High Court that six crew  members,
                   namely, Vitelli Umberto (Master), Noviello Carlo (Master
                   SN), James Mandley Samson (Chief Officer),  Sahil  Gupta
                   (2nd  Officer),  Fulbaria  (Seaman)  and  Tirumala   Rao
                   (Ordinary Sea Man), on receipt  of  summons/notice  from
                   any  court  or  by  Investigating  Officer   or   lawful
                   authority shall present  themselves  within  five  weeks
                   from the date of the receipt of such summons/notice  and
                   shall produce the first appellant vessel, if required by
                   any court or the  Investigating  Officer  or  any  other
                   lawful authority, within seven weeks from the receipt of
                   such summons/notice.


                   (b) The second appellant shall execute a bond in the sum
                   of Rupees Three Crores before the Registrar  General  of
                   the Kerala  High  Court  for  production  of  the  first
                   appellant vessel and securing the presence of the  above
                   six crew members as and when called upon by any court or
                   the Investigating Officer or any other lawful authority.


                (2) The assurance given by the Republic of Italy that if the
                presence  of  the  four  Marines,  namely,  Voglino   Renato
                (Seargeant),   Andronico   Massimo                      (1st
                Corporal), Fontano Antonio                    (3rd Corporal)
                and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), is required by any court or
                lawful authority or Investigating Officer, the  Republic  of
                Italy shall ensure  their  presence  before  such  court  or
                lawful authority or Investigating Officer is accepted.  Such
                assurance shall, however, not affect the right of the  above
                four Marines to challenge such summons/notice issued by  any
                court  or   Investigating  Officer  or  any   other   lawful
                authority before a competent court in India.


        27.     It is clarified  that  the  investigation  into  Crime  No.
        2/2012 registered at Neendakara Coastal Police Station shall not be
        an impediment for commencement of the voyage by the first appellant
        vessel subject to port and customs clearances  in  accordance  with
        law and upon furnishing the undertakings and bond as noted above.
        28.     The  four  Marines,  namely,  Voglino  Renato  (Seargeant),
        Andronico Massimo (1st Corporal), Fontano  Antonio  (3rd  Corporal)
        and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), may sail on  the  vessel  together
        with all equipments,  arms  and  ammunitions  on  board  the  first
        appellant  vessel  other  than  those   already   seized   by   the
        Investigating Officer.
        29.     No costs.


                                         ....................J.
                                         (R.M. LODHA)








        NEW DELHI;                       .....................J.
        MAY 2, 2012.                     (H.L. GOKHALE)