Read Time: 08 minutes
"We are not going into whether offences under the Aircraft Act have been made out. We will leave that question open. That's a matter for complaint, they will make out a case", the court observed
While scrutinising the actions of the Jharkhand government, the Supreme Court of India recently reserved its judgment on the state's plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s order quashing the FIR filed against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Manoj Tiwari in the Deoghar airport case.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Manmohan, while questioning the counsel for the state of Jharkhand observed, "How does Section 336 of the IPC apply here? Please read Section 441 of the IPC. Where is the intimidation? Please tell us how criminal trespass is attracted here. On a plain reading, which offence were they intending to commit? If Section 441 does not apply, the other two sections will not apply either."
Court made these observations in a case that arose from an FIR registered at the Kunda police station in the Deoghar district. It was alleged that nine individuals, including BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, and Manoj Tiwari, forcibly pressured the Air Traffic Control (ATC) staff to approve their flight’s takeoff beyond the permissible time.
As per the FIR, the case includes charges under Sections 441 (criminal trespass), and 336 (endangering life or personal safety) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections under the Aircraft Act, 1934.
While quashing the FIR, the Jharkhand High Court had ruled that FIR was not maintainable while upholding Section 12B of the Aircraft Act. According to this provision, a court can only take cognisance under the Act only after a formal complaint is filed with the written sanction of the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).
During the course of the proceedings, Senior counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand contended before the bench that the High Court quashed the FIR on the grounds that Section 12B of the Aircraft Act was invoked. The High Court held that the Aircraft Act is a special law, functioning as a code, and therefore offences under the IPC could not be investigated in this case. Additionally, it was of the view that no offence was made as per the allegations.
Justice Oka asked, "Have you filed a complaint now? You can't file it now as there is a quashing order." In response, the counsel read Section 12B of the Aircraft Act and referred to the High Court's order, asserting that the FIR was not maintainable. He further contended before the bench that the case was at the investigation stage. To which, Justice Oka said, "You should have gone to the High Court and told them that you will file a complaint."
Justice Oka further enquired as to how the CID investigated the matter under the Aircraft Act?" Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the accused, informed the court that specialised authorities are in place under the Act, adding that IPC could not apply when a special law, like the Aircraft Act, is already put in place.
''I have relied on two judgments, where it has been held that whenever an offence falls under a special law, there is a mechanism under that special law, and punishment is also prescribed under the special law. The IPC is excluded in such cases."Senior Advocate added.
The Court concluded by saying, "All offences under the Airport craft will apply. We will make that modification in the impugned judgment. Whatever is the material collected that can be used by the officer who is authorized to file a complaint under section 12B of the Act."
During the last hearing, the same bench had asked the state of Jharkhand to present arguments supporting its position that an investigation could continue without prior approval.
Case Title - State of Jharkhand vs. Nishikant Dubey
Please Login or Register
