Respondents boarded a chartered plane to travel from Deoghar Airport – Air Traffic Controller denied the permission for take-off – Pilot along with other respondents barged into the room of ATC and exerted pressure – ATC clearance was given and Chartered flight took off at 18:17 hours – F.I.R was lodged against respondents – High court quashed the F.I.R being abuse of process of law – Appellant filed appeals challenging the Judgement – Supreme Court dismissed appeals with liberty to appellant. [Paras 1, 2 and 42]
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 336 – To attract the provision, it must be alleged that the accused has done the act in question rashly and negligently and it was such as to endanger the life and liberty or personal safety of the others: Held: Section 336 IPC seeks to punish a person who does an act rashly or negligently and endangers human life or personal safety of others – To attract Section 336 IPC, the prosecution must allege that the accused did the act in question; that it was done rashly or negligently and that it was such as to endanger the life or personal safety of others – In the facts of the present case, the Respondents-accused persons were only asking the ATC to grant permission for take-off – This Court is of the view that the action of the pilot and the passengers talking to ATC officials in the present case cannot be construed as creating undue or illegal pressure on ATC officials – Moreover, as the aircraft carrying the Respondents-accused persons had taken off after obtaining ATC permission, it cannot be said that the Respondents-accused persons acted rashly or negligently so as to endanger human lives – Consequently, Section 336 IPC is not attracted to the present case. [Paras 33 and 34]
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 441, 447 and 448 – Every trespass is not itself criminal – To constitute an offence of criminal trespass prosecution has to allege that the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 IPC – No allegation of forcible entry or intimidation or insult or annoyance has been made by any official of ATC: Held: It is settled law that every trespass by itself is not criminal – To constitute criminal trespass, the prosecution has to allege that the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 IPC – Accordingly, the prosecution has to prove that the complainant had possession of the property in question and that the accused entered into or upon the property; or after having lawfully entered unlawfully remained there with the intention
(a) to commit an offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession – In the absence of any such allegation, the offence under Section 441/447 IPC cannot be sustained. [Para 35] In the present case, no allegation of forcible entry or intimidation or insult or annoyance has been made by any official of ATC – On the contrary, the Director of Deogarh Airport has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR – Consequently, Section 447 IPC is not attracted to the present case – Also, as the ATC office is not a place used as a human dwelling or a place of worship or a place for the custody of goods, the ingredients of Section 448 IPC are not attracted to the present case. [Paras 36, 37] The Aircraft Act, 1934 – Any special law having special jurisdiction, power or procedure shall prevail over general law – The Aircraft Act, 1934 and the rules framed thereunder constitute a complete code and its Section 12B is in the nature of a pre-condition for taking cognizance by a court, the local police can only forward the material collected by it to such authorised officer:
Held: The Aircraft Act, 1934 as well as the Rules framed thereunder [including Rule 14(ix) of Airport (Security) Rules, 2011] are a complete Code which deals with safety and security of civil aviation and aerodrome – The Aircraft Act, 1934 also prescribes a special procedure for taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Aircraft Act, 1934, i.e., the complaint must be made by or with the prior sanction of the Aviation authorities – Section 12B is in the nature of a pre-condition for taking cognizance by a Court – Clause (2) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Code provide that special form of procedure would prevail – Consequently, as a complaint can be made/filed by an authorised officer alone under the Special Act, i.e. the Aircrafts Act, 1934, before the concerned Court, the local police can only forward the material collected by it during the investigation to such authorised officer. [Paras 39-41]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.