CASE CITATION:
AIR 1980 SC 605,
1980 CriLJ 436,
(1980) 2 SCC 175,
1980 2 SCR 512,
1980 (12) UJ 180 SC
STATUTES:
Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860)
Cinematograph Act 1952
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
PATHAK, R.S.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
14 December 1979
FACT:
The appellant, Raj Kapoor, is the producer of the film “Satyam Shivam Sundaram” that was released in year 1978. A viewer of the film filed a suit against the producer, director, actor, case team etc. for showing the contents that is against the public morals and alleging that the title of the movie misguiding the public and showing obscene material.
The complainant filed the complaint under section 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court after examining some witnesses issued notice to the producer/present appellant. The producer moved to High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order of trial court accusing that the criminal proceeding is abuse of law and contended that the film has been duly considered for public show.
The Central Board of Film Censors grants the ‘A’ certificate to the film under section 5(A) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the producer saying that there is nothing frivolous in the appeal to quash the proceedings.
Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the producer (appellant) comes to this Court under defence of Section 79 of Indian Penal Code to neutralise the Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
FACT IN ISSUE:
- Whether the certificate sanctioning public exhibition of a film had been granted by the competent authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1952,
ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER:
- The appellant argued that the film has been granted ‘A’ certificate by the Central Board of Film Censors under section 5 (A) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the act of appellant comes under defence of Section 79 of Indian Penal Code.
- The act of appellant justified under the purview of section 79 of IPC. There was no intention to hurt the sentiments of the public at large by showing the film. The appellant had reasonable belief that his act was justified by law.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT:
- The respondent argued that the film was showing obscene content in the name of a Good title.
- The producer, actor, director misguided public by way of fascinating title and showing obscenity, indecency that is offense under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code.
JUDGEMENT HELD:
- The Hon’ble Court held that the film was certified by Central Board of Film Censors after considering all the points of section 292 of IPC under section 5 (b) of the Act..
- The court held that the certification was issued after checking all the essentials of section 292. So, the Hon’ble Court held that the appellant’s act was considered as justified by law and comes under the purview of section 79 of IPC.
- The appeal allowed and it is right to discharge the accused from charges as it is groundless and the prosecution extinguish from the proceeding.
JUDGEMENT REASONING:
- The members of the Board have a high caliber and expertise.
- IPC is general law and Cinematograph Act is special law
CONCLUSION
The government has on many occasions banned movies under the garb of reasonable restrictions. Many controversies have also arisen regarding the content of various movies such as Vishwaroopam, Parzania, Bajirao Mastani etc. to name a few.
As a result, these movies have been banned in the sensitive areas. Many movies like Kissa Kursi ka got banned during emergency because it was allegedly based on Indira Gandhi’s life.
BY GAURAV KUMAR
