The Kerala High Court at Ernakulam allowed the petition filed by the 2nd accused in C.C.No.712 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, and quashed all further proceedings against the petitioner. The offence alleged was punishable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The petitioner had approached the Court invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the ground that even if the allegations in the final report are taken at face value, no offence was made out against him.
The prosecution’s case revealed that the Malayalam film “ Vellinakshathram”, produced by the 1st accused and distributed by the 2nd accused, was shown at Kairali Sree Theatre located at Aristo Junction, Thambanoor Ward, Thycaud Village. The allegation was that a scene was inserted in which the lead actor, Sri. Siddique was seen strangling a small child to death. It was claimed that this particular scene caused panic and distress among the audience and was added after the Censor Board had certified the film. The 3rd accused was the theatre manager, while the 4th accused was responsible as the film operator. The crucial issue was whether the objectionable scene was part of the certified film or an interpolation.
The Court, however, rejected the prosecution’s claim and observed that a perusal of the final report showed no material to indicate that the objectionable scene was incorporated after the movie had been certified by the authority, and that the prosecution also had no evidence to show which portions were certified by the authorities and which were not. The Court held that unless it was established by the prosecution which portions were certified, the offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act could not be attracted.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that simply because a movie contains a scene creating panic or distress among viewers, it would not constitute an offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act unless it was established that the scene was not part of the original film certified by the Censor Board and had been interpolated. The Court affirmed that it must be prima facie established that the film was altered or tampered with in any way by the accused, without lawful authority, after certification. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner/2nd accused in C.C.No. 712 of 2011 were quashed, as no offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Cinematograph Act was made out.
Appearances:
Adv Shri. P.V. Anoop for the petitioner
Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R., Public Prosecutor for the respondents
