Crimes U/S 354, 506 & 509 IPC May Not Qualify As 'Sexual Offences' For Rescinding Airport Entry Permit: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently observed that offences under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC may not fall within the ambit of 'sexual offences' for the purpose of cancellation of Airport Entry Permit as included in the provisions of Airport Entry Permit Guidelines, 2019.Section 354 penalizes use of assault or criminal force upon woman with intent to outrage her modesty; Section 506...
The Kerala High Court recently observed that offences under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC may not fall within the ambit of 'sexual offences' for the purpose of cancellation of Airport Entry Permit as included in the provisions of Airport Entry Permit Guidelines, 2019.
Section 354 penalizes use of assault or criminal force upon woman with intent to outrage her modesty; Section 506 provides punishment for criminal intimidation; and Section 509 criminalizes use of words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Justice V G Arun found merit in the contention that the term 'sexual offence' is given as a caption to only Section 375 and related offences in the Indian Penal Code, the allegation raised against the petitioner under aforesaid Sections may not fall within the ambit of sexual offence.
The Petition was moved by the Chief Flying Instructor of Rajiv Gandhi Academy for Aviation Technology against the cancellation of his Airport Entry Permit subsequent to the registration of a crime against him at the instance of a lady student of the Aviation academy for alleged commission of offences under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC.
The lady student had alleged that the petitioner had misbehaved with her during training in January 2022, and a complaint was filed in March, upon which the petitioner had approached the High Court and obtained anticipatory bail.
Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the Aviation Academy, and the petitioner was exonerated, but despite this, registration of the crime resulted in the petitioner's Airport Entry Permit being cancelled.
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Advocate P. A. Mohammed Shah, submitted that the petitioner's Airport Entry Permit was directed to be surrendered based on paragraphs 11.1.0 and 11.9.1 of the Airport Entry Permit Guidelines, 2019. Clause 11.9.1 provides for the withdrawal of the Airport Entry Permit if the person is guilty of serious crimes. The reason for withdrawal of permit is his alleged involvement in a 'sexual offence'.
However, referring to Section 375 of the IPC, which is prefixed with the word 'sexual offence', the Counsel pointed out that the caption 'sexual offence' was introduced by Act 43 of 1983. Prior to this, the term used was 'of rape'. He contended that the offences under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC, alleged against the petitioner, do not fall within the ambit of 'sexual offence', as per the Indian Penal Code, since the terminology 'sexual offences' has been used only for the offence under Section 375 and its corollaries.
The Court found merit in the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioner and observed that the allegation raised against the petitioner may not fall within the ambit of a sexual offence.
The Court, further siding with the contentions raised by the petitioner, opined that the Regional General and Regional Director of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security were bound to consider the impact of the anticipatory bail order and the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee before cancelling the permit.
Thereby, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Regional General to take a fresh decision in the matter within a week after considering these relevant aspects and the observations made by the Court.
Case Title: K. T. Rajendran v. Director General & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 532