Judgment :- The petitioner in both the R.Ps. is the same person. The order dated 1-9-99 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi in Crl. M.P. Nos. 4252 and 5404/99 is under challenge in these R.Ps. 2. The revision petitioner was the counter-petitioner in Crl. M.P. 4252/99 and he was the petitioner in Crl. M.P. 5404/99. Crl. M.P. No. 4252/99 is filed by the Inspector of Police, Camp Office, Lakshadweep Adminstration, the 1st respondent in these revision petitions, seeking confiscation of the boat named 'Himakara' which was involved in C.C. 229/98 of the Judicial Frist Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi, wherein the Master of the vessel was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 3 r/w 10 and Section 7 r/w 14 of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981, by judgment dated 30-3-1999. 3. Crl. M.P. No. 5404/99 is filed by the petitioner herein claiming to be the owner of the vessel seeking release of the vessel to him. 4. While the petitioner contended that though the Master of the vessel was convicted, no order of confiscation of the vessel was passed by the Court in the judgment in C.C. 229/98 and he being the owner of the vessel was not a party in that case and he was neither tried nor convicted for any offence under the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act. Therefore, according to him he is entitled to release of the vehicle. 5. The respondents have contended that since the vessel was used for commission of the offence regarding which the case was charge-sheeted and the Master of the vessel was found guilty, convicted and sentenced, the vessel is liable for confiscation under Section 13 of the Act. 6. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention of the respondent, allowed Crl. M.P. 4252/99 filed by the 1st respondent herein, Inspector of Police, Camp Office of Iakshadweep Administration and ordered confiscation of the vessel and dismissed Crl. M.P. 5404/99 filed by the petitioner herein. Hence these revisions are preferred by the revision petitioner Challenging the order passed by the lower Court in the two Crl. M.Ps. separately. 7. On 9-5-98 at about 8.30 a.m. a Sreelankan vessel 'Himakara' was found along with its crew near the Minicoy island without any licence or permit to enter the Maritime Zone of India. Hence these revisions are preferred by the revision petitioner Challenging the order passed by the lower Court in the two Crl. M.Ps. separately. 7. On 9-5-98 at about 8.30 a.m. a Sreelankan vessel 'Himakara' was found along with its crew near the Minicoy island without any licence or permit to enter the Maritime Zone of India. Therefore, the Coast Guard arrested the Master and crew and seized the vessel and registered Crime No. 4/98 by the Inspector of Police, Minicoy alleging offences punishable under Section 3 r/w. 10 and Section 7 r/w. 14 of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act. The case was tried before the J.F.C.M.'s Court-I, Kochi and after trial the Captain of the vessel was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment to undergo S.I. for one month as per Annexure A-1 judgment dated 30-3-1999. No order is passed by the Court with regard to the confiscation or release of the vehicle involved in the case, in that judgment. 8. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 10920/99 before this Court seeking appropriate direction to release the vehicle to him. But subsequently that O.P. was dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, as per judgment dated 6-9-99. According to the petitioner, in view of the above petition filed by him before the lower Court for release of the vehicle, that O.P. was withdrawn by him without prejudice to his contentions. 9. The petitioner has contended that though the vessel was alleged to have been seized, the respondent did not produce the same before the Magistrate's Court as provided umder Section 9(4) of the Act and therefore, Section 13 of the Act regarding confiscation of the vehicle is not applicable in this case since the mandatory provisions of Section 9(4) are not complied with. 10. There is no dispute that the vessel after seizure was not produced before the lower Court. The respondent contended that he had filed a petition before the lower Court on 11-5-1998 seeking permission to retain the vessel at the Minicoy island since no boat was available to toe the vessel from Minicoy to Kochi for production before the Court. 10. There is no dispute that the vessel after seizure was not produced before the lower Court. The respondent contended that he had filed a petition before the lower Court on 11-5-1998 seeking permission to retain the vessel at the Minicoy island since no boat was available to toe the vessel from Minicoy to Kochi for production before the Court. According to him, though no order was passed by the Court in that petition, by the subsequent proceedings and judgment it was presumed that permission was granted by the Court. 11. Though Section 9(4)(a) of the Act stipulates that the vessel or other things seized under Section 9(2)(a) shall be produced before the Magistrate competent to try the offence under the Act as soon as possible and he shall make such order as he may deem fit for the retention or custody of such vessel or things with Government or with any other authority pending completion of the prosecution proceedings. But in view of the fact that the respondent filed a petition on 16-5-98 after the seizure of the vessel etc. on 9-5-98, before the lower Court seeking permission to retain the vessel in Minicoy island, since no vessel to toe the boat to Kochi was available, it cannot be contended that the provisions of Section 9(4) of the Act are not complied with. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that in view of the fact that the mandatory provisions of Section 9(4) of the Act are not complied with in this case, confiscation of the vessel under Section 13 of the Act does not arise at all, is not sustainable. 12. Section 13(1) of the Act lays down that where any person is convicted of an offence under Section 10 or Section 11 or Section 12, the foreign vessel used in or in connection with the commission of the said offence, together with its fishing gear, equipment, stores and cargo and any fish on board such ship or the proceeds of the sale of any fish ordered to be sold under the second proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 9 shall also be liable to confiscation. 13. In this case it is not disputed that the Master of the vessel was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 3 r/w. 10 and Sections 7 r/w. 14 of the Act. 13. In this case it is not disputed that the Master of the vessel was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 3 r/w. 10 and Sections 7 r/w. 14 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent vehemently contended that confiscation of the vessel should follow the conviction and sentence of the Master of the vessel in this case under Section 13(1) of the Act. 14. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not a party to the prosecution of the Master of the vessel and there is no allegation that the vessel is involved in any offence in this case. He also contended that he has produced clinching documents to establish that he is the owner of the vessel. Therefore, according to him, he is entitled to release of the vessel since there is no finding that the vessel is involved in any offence so as to be confiscated under Section 13 of the Act. But this contention of the petitioner is not acceptable in view of the specific provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. T. Shang v. S. D. Baijal, AIR 1988 SC 603 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 612 : "Section 13 also is clear and unambiguous terms says that on the conviction of the person i.e. the master and the charterer of an offence under Section 10 or 11 or 12 the vessel used in connection with the offence together with the fish on board such ship or the sale proceeds of the sale of such fish, stores, cargo shall also be liable to confiscation. Viewed in the context the words 'shall also be liable to confiscation' do not leave any discretion to the Magistrate or the Court to make an order of confiscation of the vessel as soon as the masters of the vessel are convicted u/S. 10 or 11 or 12 of the said Act. The Legislative intent in making this provision is to provide deterrent punishment to prohibit fishing in exclusive economic zone of India by foreign vessels in infringement of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and the conditions of permit or licence. The Legislative intent in making this provision is to provide deterrent punishment to prohibit fishing in exclusive economic zone of India by foreign vessels in infringement of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and the conditions of permit or licence. Viewed in this context Section 13 mandates that on conviction of the master and charterer of an offence under Section 12 not only penalty of fine shall be imposed but the vessel used in or in connection with the commission of such offence has to be confiscated. It is not open to the Court to consider the graveness of the offence and other extenuating circumstances and to make or order for confiscation of the offending vessel concerned. Confiscation of the vessel is the immediate statutory consequence of the finding that an offence either under Section 10 or 11 or 12 has been proved and its master has been convicted. Seetion 13 is thus mandatory and it is not open to the Court as soon as the master of the vessel is convicted of an offence under Section 12 and is awarded penalty to refrain from making an order confiscating the offending vessel." 15. From the above observations made by the Supreme Court it is clear that the Magistrate is obliged to order confiscation of the vessel involved in the case when its master is found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 10 or 11 or 12 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the fact that the master of the vessel involved in this case is found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w. Section 10 of the Act, the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1) regarding confiscation have to be followed. Though the lower Court omitted to pass the order confiscating the vessel when Annexure A-1 judgment was passed, it has rightly done so by the impugned order. Therefore, I find absolutely no force in the contentions raised by the revision petitioner in these revision petitions. Hence the impugned order passed by the lower Court is confirmed and both the Crl. R.Ps. are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.