Karnataka HC quashes Criminal Case Filed Against Pilot Under Aircraft Act After His Plane Rolls Over During Takeoff

The Karnataka High Court said that an offense under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act is not maintainable unless a complaint is filed with prior sanction for prosecution by the competent authority.

single judge bench Justice M Nagaprasanna It was thus decided and the petition filed by pilot Akash Jaiswal against him was allowed and quashed the investigation initiated against him under Section 11A.

According to the prosecution, Jaiswal was flying a plane at Jakkur Airport in 2020 and during takeoff, the flight veered to the left side and due to this change in direction, it overturned. However, no injuries were recorded either to any person or to the applicant.

The petitioner submitted that the concerned Court could not take cognizance of the offense as it was contrary to Section 12B of the Act; This article mandates this unless there is sanction for prosecution of the petitioner by the Authorities specified in Article 12B. It would be unlawful for any court to take the law into consideration. Additionally, the Department of Aviation cleared the petitioner in the Departmental Investigation.

The prosecution opposed the defense, saying that after stating that the crime was a plane crash, the crime was actually allowed to be recorded. Therefore, this Court should not obstruct the trial and in a full-fledged trial the plaintiff should come out clean.

Referring to Section 12B of the Act, the court said:Provides that no Court shall recognize any offense under the Act upon a complaint made by the Director General of Civil Aviation or the Director General of the Civil Aviation Security Bureau or the Director General of the Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau or with previous written sanction. , that’s the way it is.”

Following this he said “In the current case, it is an accepted fact that the complaint was not preceded by any sanctions as required by law. Complaint shall not amount to a complaint before the judicial police but a complaint before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.PC.”

So it happened.”“On the aforesaid twin circumstances of the complaint not being before the learned Magistrate and the complaint not being with the previous sanction of the aforesaid authorities, the entire act of registering the complaint before the Amruthahalally Police Station and the act of taking cognizance of the learned Magistrate is held to be null and void of the offence.”

Bank added: “It is an admitted fact that the complaint does not precede any sanction imposed by the Authorities enumerated herein; The registration of the FIR is unlawful and allows further proceedings in the present case merely because the police filed the chargesheet and the Court accepted it. “Awareness of this will undoubtedly lead to abuse of the legal process and lead to a perversion of justice.”

Appearance: Advocates Arnav A. Bagalwadi and Advocates Capt. Arvind Sharma, Keerthana Nagaraj, for the Petitioners.

HCGP Sowmya R for participants.

Quote Number: 2024 LiveLaw (Snow) 453

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9224 OF 2024

Case Title: Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka

Click Here to Read/Download the Order