The sessions court recently acquitted Vinay Chatu, a 55-year-old employee of Fin Airways, who had been booked for a confrontation with a CISF personnel in November 2008. The incident occurred when the CISF personnel insisted on a security stamp for the boarding pass of an Australian national, Witterneier Gudrun Karola Luise, visiting the Saibaba temple.
The court ruled in favor of Chatu, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the mandatory requirement of a security stamp since the woman was deported due to invalid documents and had not left the airport premises. The woman, facing Visa complications, was issued a transit card for her return to Australia.
During the boarding process at gate number 15, the CISF personnel noticed the absence of a security stamp on the boarding pass and no security tags on the handbags. Allegedly, Chatu, the Duty Manager, disregarded instructions and escorted the passenger forcefully to the aircraft, stating that the officer could do whatever he wanted.
The CISF personnel reported the incident to his superior, PV Prasad, Company Commander, CISF Superintendent. As a security measure, the flight was recalled, and all passengers and their luggage underwent checks, security stamps were affixed, and the flight was allowed to take off.
Following the incident, the CISF personnel filed a complaint against Chatu for obstructing his duty, leading to Chatu's arrest and subsequent release on bail. In her statement to the police, the woman mentioned that she was not directed to get her boarding pass stamped and had boarded the flight in a hurry.
The court, after reviewing the evidence, noted that Chatu, while working for Fin Airways, claimed that a security stamp was unnecessary. It highlighted the lack of investigation into the rules and requirements for the transit card, questioning whether the passenger was allowed beyond the security-bound area.
The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the lawful action of insisting on a security stamp on the transit card. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that Chatu obstructed the officer from discharging his duty, resulting in Chatu's acquittal.
