LI Network
Published on: 24 July 2023 at 12:47 IST
The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a case against two men who were accused of operating a drone in defiance of police directives.
The incident took place on June 14, 2022, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to visit Mumbai, resulting in expected VVIP movements on Pedder Road. On June 13, during patrolling, an Assistant Police Inspector (API) from Gamdevi police station spotted an airborne drone. However, by the time his colleagues arrived at the scene, the drone had disappeared.
Subsequent investigations conducted by the police team on June 15 revealed that the drone had been operated between 3.30 am to 5.30 pm at the behest of Kalpataru builder. Upon examining the permissions granted to Kalpataru, the team discovered that the drone’s flight had violated the DCP (Operations) order issued on June 3, which restricted drone activities from June 11 to July 10, 2022.
The specific breaches included flying the drone over a restricted area and failing to inform the local police station. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the accused under IPC Section 188, which pertains to disobedience of orders issued by a public servant.
In response to a notice, the accused, Ganguly and Dube, appeared before the Investigating Officer (IO) on June 20. However, despite their cooperation, the IO filed a chargesheet before the magistrate.
The magistrate, on September 20, initiated proceedings against them under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Police Act (MPA), which grants the power to prohibit certain acts to prevent disorder, and punishable under Section 135 for contravening rules or directions under Section 37. However, the magistrate refused to consider IPC Section 188, stating that it requires a formal inquiry and the court conducting the inquiry should file the complaint. Dissatisfied with the decision, the duo approached the High Court for relief.
In its order on July 11, the High Court judges acknowledged the argument put forth by senior advocate Girish Kulkarni, representing the petitioners.
Kulkarni contended that the police authorities were aware of the prohibitory order issued on June 3 when granting permission for drone photography. However, they noted that the permission letter dated July 11, 2022, did not mention any such order.
Moreover, the judges pointed out that there was no evidence to prove that the alleged prohibitory order had been properly promulgated, as required by Section 163 of the MPA, which deals with the issue of public notice.
Consequently, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the accused, quashing the case against them, and highlighting the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and providing accurate information in such cases involving drone operations.
