BHUJ, Sept 16: For a case which created so much sensation, the end was rather tame. Customs authorities today told a local court that they did not want to prosecute the master and chief officer of North Korean ship Ku Wol-San, which is detained at Kandla Port since June, allegedly for carrying missile-making equipment for Pakistan.Chief Judicial Magistrate A D Mougal ordered that Tae Min-Hun and Kim Sol-Ik should be freed forthwith and restored to the place from where they were arrested on July 16 -- namely the ship, which is anchored in Kandla harbour, along with 44 other crew members.
The customs gave no reason for their anti-climactic submission before the court. Strikingly, it came on the day the two North Koreans, both booked under the Arms Act, became eligible for bail; they had spent 60 days in a special jail in judicial custody, without the authorities filing a charge-sheet.
Sources said the decision to drop prosecution was taken ``at the highest level in New Delhi''. Only on September 8, Kandla customs authorities had issued notices to seven parties for starting adjudication proceedings in the matter. The only Indian party among them is Kandla-based handling agent ACT, which had unloaded 13,000 tonnes sugar.
Curiously, all the time the North Koreans where in jail, they made no attempt to obtain bail, nor did any advocate appear in court on their behalf, though officials from the North Korean Embassy in New Delhi did try to meet them.
The ship was detained following an intelligence tip-off that it carried military hardware for Pakistan. It had berthed at Kandla to unload a consignment of sugar. During checking, packed cargo, marked water purification equipment, was found in the ship's hold.
The cargo was unloaded, defence experts were summoned to examine it, and the crew questioned. It was said the cargo included missile components, plus equipment for an entire missile-making factory, all bound for Pakistan, along with detailed blueprints.
The ship's master and chief officer were arrested and booked under the Arms Act and also on charges of misdeclaration of goods. However, both maintained they were innocent and had committed no offence under international law.
Certain Indian officials had then expressed doubt whether the charge of misdeclaration of goods could stand legal scrutiny. They were of the opinion that while the equipment could be used for military purposes, it had other, non-military uses also.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.