Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Pilot Under Aircraft Act After Plane Flown By Him Toppled During Take Off
The Karnataka High Court has said that an offence under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act is not maintainable unless a complaint is filed with prior sanction to prosecute from the competent authority.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus and allowed the petition filed by a pilot Akash Jaiswal against and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 11A. As per...
The Karnataka High Court has said that an offence under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act is not maintainable unless a complaint is filed with prior sanction to prosecute from the competent authority.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus and allowed the petition filed by a pilot Akash Jaiswal against and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 11A.
As per the prosecution Jaiswal was flying an aircraft at Jakkur Aerodrome in 2020 and at the time of take off, the flight veered to the left side and due to such veering, toppled. However, no injuries to any person nor to the petitioner were recorded.
The petitioner had argued that the concerned Court could not take cognizance of the offence, as it runs counter to Section 12B of the Act, which mandates that unless there is a sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the hands of the Authorities mentioned in Section 12B of the Act, taking of cognizance by any Court would be contrary to law. Moreover, the Aviation Department has exonerated the petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry.
The prosecution opposed the plea saying permission in fact has been granted to register the crime after terming it to be an aircraft accident Therefore, this Court should not interdict the proceedings and it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial.
Referring to Section 12B of the Act the court said “It mandates that no Court shall cognizance of any offence under the Act same on a complaint made by or with the previous sanction in writing by the Director General of Civil Aviation or Director General of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security or Director General of Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau, as the case would be.”
Following which it said “admitted fact in the case at hand that the complaint is not preceded by a sanction, as is necessary in law. The complaint would mean a complaint before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., and not a complaint before the jurisdictional police.”
Thus it held “on the aforesaid twin circumstance that the complaint is not before the learned Magistrate and the complaint is not with the previous sanction of the aforesaid authorities, the entire act of registration of the complaint before the Amruthahally Police Station and the act of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence are rendered a nullity.”
The bench added, “The admitted fact being the complaint not preceded by a sanction from the Authorities enumerated therein, the very registration of the FIR is contrary to law and permitting further trial in the case at hand merely because the police have filed their charge sheet and the Court has taken cognizance would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
Appearance: Advocates Arnav A. Bagalwadi a/w Advocates Captain Arvind Sharma, Keerthana Nagaraj, for Petitioners.
HCGP Sowmya R for Respondents.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9224 OF 2024
Case Title: Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka