Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akash Jaiswal, a pilot by profession, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.15835/2023 pending before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru. The proceedings arose from Crime No.95/2022 registered by the Amruthahalli Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. The incident occurred on 17.04.2022 when the petitioner was flying an aircraft 'VT-ETU Cessna C185' belonging to 'Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy Pvt. Ltd.' at Jakkur Aerodrome. During take-off, the aircraft veered to the left and toppled, but no injuries were caused to any person or the petitioner. The incident was termed an aircraft accident allegedly due to the petitioner's negligence. The crime was registered on 19.04.2022. The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that no prior sanction of the Central Government had been obtained as required under Section 10 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. The court examined Section 10 of the Act, which provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The court noted that the offence under Section 11 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The court held that the requirement of sanction under Section 10 is mandatory and that the proceedings initiated without such sanction are void ab initio. The court relied on the principle that where a statute requires sanction, prosecution without it is not maintainable. The court also observed that the petitioner had not been shown to have been negligent in a manner that would attract the offence. The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.15835/2023.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Aircraft Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 10 and Section 11 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 - The petitioner, a pilot, was prosecuted under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 for alleged negligence causing an aircraft accident. The court held that Section 10 of the Act mandates prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecution under Section 11. Since no such sanction was obtained, the proceedings were quashed. Held that prosecution without sanction is void ab initio (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 can be initiated without prior sanction of the Central Government as required under Section 10 of the Act?
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.15835/2023 pending on the file of XLI ACMM at Bengaluru in Crime No.95/2022 registered by the 1st respondent Amruthahalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 are quashed.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 10 of Aircraft Act
- 1934 is mandatory before prosecution under Section 11
- Criminal proceedings without sanction are void ab initio
- High Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for lack of sanction
