Karnataka HC quashes criminal case against pilot under Aircraft Act after plane he was piloting crashed during take-off

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

One-person judging panel Justice M Nagaprasanna so held and allowed the petition filed by pilot Akash Jaiswal against and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 11A.

According to the prosecution, Jaiswal was piloting an aircraft at Jakkur airfield in 2020 and during take-off, the aircraft veered to the left side and due to such deviation, it overturned. However, no physical injuries to the person or the applicant were recorded.

The applicant contended that the appropriate court cannot take cognizance of the offense as it contravenes section 12B of the Act which provides that unless there is sanction for prosecution of the applicant by the authorities referred to in section 12B of the Act, the taking of cognizance by any court would be against the law. Moreover, the Aviation Department acquitted the applicant in the Departmental Inquiry.

The prosecutor’s office objected to the application, saying that in fact permission was given to register the crime after it was declared to be a plane crash. Therefore, this Court should not stay the proceedings and the petitioner should come clean in a full trial.

Referring to section 12B of the Act, the court said:It provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offense under the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the Director General of Civil Aviation or the Director General of the Civil Aviation Safety Bureau or the Director General of the Aviation Accident Investigation Bureau or with the prior sanction in writing. , depending on the circumstances.”

After what is said “in this case, the fact that the complaint is not preceded by a sanction, as required by law, is recognized. The complaint will mean a complaint to the learned Magistrate with reference to section 200 Cr.P.C. and not a complaint to the jurisdictional police.”

Thus, it was “in view of the aforesaid double fact that the complaint was not filed before the learned Magistrate and the complaint was not filed with the prior sanction of the above authorities, the entire act of registration of the complaint at the Amruthagalli Police Station and the act of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offense are declared null and void.”

Lava added:As it is an admitted fact that the complaint was not preceded by the sanction of the authorities enumerated therein, the very registration of the FIR is contrary to law and permits further trial in this case only because the police have filed their charge sheet and the court has taken cognizance, no doubt, would be an abuse of the law and lead to a miscarriage of justice.”

Appearance: Arnav A. Bagalwadi Advocates and Capt. Arvind Sharma Advocates, Kirtana Nagaraj, for the petitioners.