Incidence Phase The Broader Context
The SUA Convention was yet to come in force
The Maritime Zones Act of India1976 (domestic
jurisdiction issues)
1999 (Chinas crackdown on the pirates)
The pirates looking for yet another promising
political economy to penetrate
October 1999 the vessel MV Alandra Rainbow
(owned by Japanese, flying a Panama flag and
carrying 7000 tonnes of Aluminum ingots valued
between US 8-14 million ) reported missing with
17 crew members on board!
Soon after the ship had sailed from Kuala Tanjung
in Indonesia for Miike in Japan, a gang of
pirates armed with swords and guns hijacked the
ship. The crew was transferred to MV SANHO and
held captive for a week and eventually set adrift
in a life raft on 29 October 1999. Rescued by a
Thai fishing boat 10 days later on 8 November,
off the North East coast of Sumatra.
The Japanese Master Mariner filed a complaint
about the incidence with Thai authorities.
Incidence Phase Enters India!
28 October 1999 The IMB Piracy Reporting Centre
commenced broadcasting a message to ships at sea
via safety NET service of Inmarset-C requesting
to report any ship which matched the description
of Alondra Rainbow.
14 November 1999 the master of a Kuwaiti tanker
reported sighting a ship matching the profile of
the Alondra Rainbow heading into the Arabian Sea.
The IMB Piracy Reporting Centre passed this
information along with a photo of the Alondra
Rainbow to the Indian Coast Guard, requesting
assistance.
Incidence Phase The Indian Response
The Indian Coast Guard immediately dispatched a
patrol aircraft to search the area. The suspected
ship had a name MEGA RAMA and was flying a Belize
flag. Quick checks by the IMB confirmed that no
such ship was registered in Belize.
Indian patrol aircraft attempted radio contact
with the ship but in vain.
It was only when a missile carrying Corvette, INS
PRAHAR was called into action that the high seas
chase was brought to an end through a graduated
use of force.
16 November 1999 Mega Rama captured (300 miles
south west of Mumbai?). The 15 Indonesians found
on board allegedly attempted to destroy the
evidence by setting fire to and scuttling the
ship. The naval boarding party put out the fire,
brought the flooding under control and towed the
ship to Mumbai.
It was for the first time that a Pirated vessel
was apprehended and the offenders were caught red
handed (in Indian waters?).
The owners of the ship were Japanese, part of
the crew were mixed with Indonesian and
Philippine origin. The pirates were mostly
Indonesian , the offence committed in Indonesian
waters, the consignment of the Aluminum was for a
third country buyer, the vessel was chased in the
Indian waters and apprehended by Indian maritime
forces. The Law enforcement agency in India, the
Police were not oriented in maritime crimes at
all . The involvement of IMB, the Insurers and
the Japanese government at different stages was
inevitable to make a strong case (RS Vasan)
Framing Charges with regard to Piracy in Alondra Raibow Case
Numerous difficulties encountered even in finding
the relevant sections of the Law of the land or
even an international law that could be made
applicable in respect of Piracy.
The law enforcement agencies had to finally seek
the relevant sections of some old Admirality
provisions which thankfully were still
applicable.
The accused were held guilty on eleven accounts
including charges of attempts to murder, forgery,
criminal conspiracy, assault and using deadly
weapons, invoking the relevant sections of the
Indian Penal Code.
Framing Charges! How comprehensive is the current legal regime?
To quote Professor Don Rothwell, despite
significant, unprecedented moves by the
International community to address the growing
threat posed by maritime piracy, considerable
legal challenges remain. It is clear that the
current legal regime is not comprehensive with
respect to the enforcement of either
international law or domestic criminal law
against those responsible for piracy attacks. The
jurisdiction of a State over acts of piracy is
based upon NATIONALITY OR TERRITORIALITY. That
is, there must be a genuine link between the
State and the ship , or between the State and the
waters on which the offences take place.
Judgment of the Trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay (25 February
2003)
The trial court convicted the appellants for
offence punishable under section 307 (Attempt to
Murder), read with section 120-B (1) r/w section
34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to
suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
3,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to
suffer further R.I. for 2 months
The trial court also convicted the appellants of
offences punishable under sections 353 (assault
or criminal force to deter public servants from
discharge of his duty), 188 (disobedience to
order duly promulgated by public servant), 437
(mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a
decked vessel or one of twenty tons burden) 465
(punishment for forgery), 468 (forgery for
purpose of cheating, 471 (using as genuine a
forged document or electronic record, and were
sentenced to suffer R.I. for various periods on
each count and fine was also imposed on them of
Rs. 5,000 for each count
Christianus Aeros Mintodo v. The state of Mahrashtra (In the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay judgment dated 7 March 2005)
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly since no evidence has
come on record to indicate that persons who were arrested were the same persons who had
committed offence of piration in high sea. The Captain of the ship P.W. 2 in his evidence has not
been in a position to identify the accused in the test identification parade as also in the Court. It
is also not clear as to where the ship was seized . If the ship had been seized near Goa, it was the
duty of the coast guard to have taken the ship to the nearest port which is Goa. In that case, Goa
court alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the said case. Further considering the
discrepancy regarding the exact place also, there is serious doubt regarding the exact location
where ship was seized. It is a matter of record that at one stage, it is claimed by the prosecution
that the ship was seized at about 300 nautical miles from Indian coastal line. In view of this
discrepancy, in my view, this is a fit case where fine which is imposed by the trial court is set
aside. Since the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has made submissions only on the
point of sentence, the order of conviction will have to be confirmed.
How come the pirates (having served a term of 5
years, 3 months and 14 days of sentence) were let
off with fine being waved off by the High Court ,
overruling the earlier verdict of the Sessions
Court?
What were (and continue to be) the major
inadequacies in existing laws?
Was there a lack of seriousness on the part of
concerned agencies in understanding the stringent
requirements in the court, after the ruling in
the sessions court which had found the accused
guilty on several counts?
How do we explain the unwillingness of the
Japanese master of the vessel to identify the
culprits?
And what about the doubts over location (Kochi,
Goa, Bombay)?
Need for critical introspection and a serious
and systematic search for a more coordinate d
response among various agencies and stake
holders.
International Law Commission may like to revisit
the definition of piracy
State and status of specialization in maritime
law and capacity building under international law
Coastal Security Scheme (marine police, coastal
police stations, jurisdiction, coordination)
Regional and sub-regional cooperation and the
role of International Maritime Community (a new
role for IOR-ARC?)
Role of Naval Diplomacy and the need for regular
maritime dialogues among the littoral states and
extra-regional states
Seeking a more comprehensive legal regime to deal
with threats of piracy and crimes at sea
