IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offences under the Aircraft Act requires prior sanction from specified authorities; absence of such sanction renders the FIR and subsequent proceedings invalid.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.15835/2023 for an offence punishable under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 ('the Act' for short). The said proceeding arose out of registration of a crime in Crime No.95/2022.

2. Heard Sri. Arnav A. Bagalwadi along with Captain Arvind Sharma and Ms. Keerthana Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R., learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

3. Petitioner is a pilot by profession. A complaint comes to be registered on 17.04.2022 by respondent No.1 police alleging that the petitioner was flying an Aircraft 'VT-ETU Cessna C185', which belonged to 'Agni Aero Sports Adventure Academy Pvt. Ltd.'. The petitioner sought to fly the same at Jakkur Aerodrome. At the time of take off, it appears that the flight veered to the left side and due to such veering, topples with no injuries to any person nor to the petitioner. This was termed to be an Aircraft Accident, which is said to be due to the negligence of the pilot -petitioner. Based on the incident that happened on 17.04.2022, a crime in Crime No.95/2022 comes to be registered on 19.04.2022.

4. On registration of the crime, the investigation begins. On the investigation getting completed, the police is said to have filed a charge sheet even before the concerned Court. The concerned Court on receipt of the final report -the charge sheet, takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 11 of the Act on 05.07.2023. Taking of the cognizance against the petitioner and registration of the crime or issuance of the summons, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the concerned Court could not take the cognizance of the offence, as it runs counter to Section 12B of the Act, which mandates that unless there is a sanction to prosecute the petitioner and the like, a sanction from the hands of the Authorities mentioned in Section 12B of the Act, taking of cognizance by any Court would be contrary to law. He would further contend that the Aviation Department conducted a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner and has exonerated him of the allegations. He would submit that the allegations are identical and therefore, the very order of taking of cognizance should fail.

6. Learned HCGP would refute the submissions to contend that permission infact has been granted to register the crime after terming it to be an aircraft accident. She would further contend that the Court has now taken cognizance after filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, this Court should not interdict the proceedings and it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On 17.04.2022, the aircraft which the petitioner sought to fly veers to the left, topples due to such veering. The veering is said to be on account of the act of the petitioner to avoid birds and dogs on the tarmac. This leads to the aircraft toppling. The toppling leads to the incident being termed as an aircraft accident and the terming of the incident as an aircraft accident leads to the registration of a crime in Crime No.95/2022. The registration of the crime is preceded by a complaint. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint: