From such an aspect, this Court is of the view that
the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or
not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term
`whoever causes to exhibit any cinema' under Section 55 I
(2) of the Abkari Act. Matters being so, the prosecution
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report,
are liable to be quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
Crl.MC.No. 7342 of 2015
PRITHVIRAJ
S/O. SUKUMARAN, CHANDRAKAMAL,
Vs
STATE OF KERALA
A film actor named Pridhviraj, who had occasion to act
in the lead role in a film titled `Seventh Day', has presently
the ordeal to face the trial in C.C.No.1869 of 2014 before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, for an offence punishable under
Section 55 I (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the statutory warning
that "CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS INJURIOUS TO
HEALTH", had to be exhibited in a particular scene in the
film and that such a statuary warning exhibited in the film
was not really legible and also that it did not conform to the
size prescribed under Section 55 I (1) of the Abkari Act.
3. As per Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act, `whoever
exhibits or causes to exhibit any cinema having a scene in
contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) in any
theatre shall be punishable for such an offence'. Here the
question to be considered is as to who are the persons, who
can be clothed with criminal liability under Section 55 I (1)
and (2) of the Abkari Act. When sub-section (2) says,
`whoever exhibits or causes to exhibit', necessarily it means
that the owner of the theatre, who exhibits such a film, can
be an accused in such a case. The next question to be
considered is as to who are the persons, who can be
brought within the purview of `whoever causes to exhibit any
cinema ' under Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act.
4. In fact, it is a vague term. If an interpretation to
the effect that the actor in the film can also be considered as
a person, who causes to exhibit the cinema is taken, then
not only the actor in the film; but also all the other persons
behind the production and processing of the film can also be
brought within the purview of that term. Therefore, such an
interpretation is not possible. An interpretation of such a
provision has to be strictly done. It should be meant for
advancing the remedy and suppressing the mischief. In
such case, it seems that the person, who produces the film
and also the person, who distributes such a film can only be
the persons, who can be brought within the purview of the
term `whoever causes to exhibit any cinema.' Otherwise,
even the light boy, who had participated in the production of
a film has also to be brought within the purview of the said
terms.
5. From such an aspect, this Court is of the view that
the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or
not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term
`whoever causes to exhibit any cinema' under Section 55 I
(2) of the Abkari Act. Matters being so, the prosecution
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report,
are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the
prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in
C.C.No.1869 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's
Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final
Report, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA,
JUDGE.
Print Page
the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or
not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term
`whoever causes to exhibit any cinema' under Section 55 I
(2) of the Abkari Act. Matters being so, the prosecution
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report,
are liable to be quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
Crl.MC.No. 7342 of 2015
PRITHVIRAJ
S/O. SUKUMARAN, CHANDRAKAMAL,
Vs
STATE OF KERALA
A film actor named Pridhviraj, who had occasion to act
in the lead role in a film titled `Seventh Day', has presently
the ordeal to face the trial in C.C.No.1869 of 2014 before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, for an offence punishable under
Section 55 I (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the statutory warning
that "CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS INJURIOUS TO
HEALTH", had to be exhibited in a particular scene in the
film and that such a statuary warning exhibited in the film
was not really legible and also that it did not conform to the
size prescribed under Section 55 I (1) of the Abkari Act.
3. As per Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act, `whoever
exhibits or causes to exhibit any cinema having a scene in
contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) in any
theatre shall be punishable for such an offence'. Here the
question to be considered is as to who are the persons, who
can be clothed with criminal liability under Section 55 I (1)
and (2) of the Abkari Act. When sub-section (2) says,
`whoever exhibits or causes to exhibit', necessarily it means
that the owner of the theatre, who exhibits such a film, can
be an accused in such a case. The next question to be
considered is as to who are the persons, who can be
brought within the purview of `whoever causes to exhibit any
cinema ' under Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act.
4. In fact, it is a vague term. If an interpretation to
the effect that the actor in the film can also be considered as
a person, who causes to exhibit the cinema is taken, then
not only the actor in the film; but also all the other persons
behind the production and processing of the film can also be
brought within the purview of that term. Therefore, such an
interpretation is not possible. An interpretation of such a
provision has to be strictly done. It should be meant for
advancing the remedy and suppressing the mischief. In
such case, it seems that the person, who produces the film
and also the person, who distributes such a film can only be
the persons, who can be brought within the purview of the
term `whoever causes to exhibit any cinema.' Otherwise,
even the light boy, who had participated in the production of
a film has also to be brought within the purview of the said
terms.
5. From such an aspect, this Court is of the view that
the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or
not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term
`whoever causes to exhibit any cinema' under Section 55 I
(2) of the Abkari Act. Matters being so, the prosecution
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report,
are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the
prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in
C.C.No.1869 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's
Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final
Report, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA,
JUDGE.
No comments:
Post a Comment