SRIDEVI PADMANABHAN Vs. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.458/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court XI, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered based on Annexure IV Final Report. The Sub Inspector of Police, Valiathura Police Station filed Annexure IV Final Report alleging offence punishable under Section 11A of the Air Craft Act, 1934.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that, the petitioner is a Cabin Crew Member of Air India. On 17.08.2017, the petitioner was on duty in Air India Flight No.A1968 from Sharjah to Chennai via Thiruvananthapuram. As part of routine check on arrival at Thiruvananthapuram International Air Port, the petitioner was subjected to Breath Analyser Test. In the Breath Analyser Test conducted on the petitioner, the reading was 0.07. Subsequently, a trial test was conducted by the Doctor. The alleged second test was conducted by the Duty Doctor, wherein the reading was 0%. Thereafter, the petitioner was again subjected to confirmatory test, wherein the reading was shown to have increased to 0.17%. Annexure 1 is the Test Report. Based on Annexure 1, Annexure II letter dated 27.10.2017 was sent by the Air Port Manager to the Sub Inspector of Police, Valiathura Police Station, that is after two months of the alleged incident. Based on Annexure II letter, Annexure III FIR was registered by the Valiathura Police as Crime No.1917/2017 alleging offence under Section 11A of the Air Craft Act, 1934. After investigation, the police submitted Annexure IV Final report on 25.11.2017. Now, the petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the entire proceedings, raising several contentions.

(3.) Even though several contentions are raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined to his argument on a single point. According to the counsel, Section 11A of the Air Craft Act, 1934 is a non-cognizable offence and hence, the police has no authority to investigate the same without prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar [(1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 557] and the judgment of this Court in Savithri v. State of Kerala [2016 (2) KLT 322].