AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the proceedings initiated by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, against the petitioner under Section 294 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint filed by one Badrinath Jaiswal, the opposite party. ( 2 ) ANANDALOK is a fortnightly Bengali magazine published by Ananda Bazar Group of Publication. This Magazine publishes matter of importance relating to Cinema, Drama and other cultural affairs. The petitioner No. 1 is the Editor of the Bengali Weekly Anandalok. The petitioner No. 2 is the printer and Publisher of the said weekly. The Petitioner No. 3 is a Film Actress and the petitioner No. 4 is a Photographer based in Bombay. ( 3 ) ONE Badrinath Jaiswal, the opposite party herein had filed a petition of compliant against the petitioners and three others before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, alleging commission of offences under Section 292 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, who took cognizance of the alleged offence and directed service of summons. Hence this revisional application. ( 4 ) IN the petition of complaint, it was, inter alia, alleged that the edition of Anandalok dated 25th January, 1986 contained obscences and indecent photographs which appeared at page 25 and on the cover and at page 30 too. ( 5 ) IT is contended by Mr. Balai Roy, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, that the impugned photographs are part of a thought provoking article entitled How much shall heroines expose. The article seeks to highlight the modem trend of cinema production in India today and the views of nine heroines on the subject of exposing their bare bodies of the silver screen. These photographs have not been taken by any photographer of the Magazine but they are stills from which have been and are being shown on the silver screen. The impugned picture on the cover is of Vijayata, a Film Actress. The impugned picture on page 25 is a still from the film Tarzan and the impugned picture on page 30 is from the film Kaliyug Ka Ramayant directed by well known Producer-cum-Director. None of the impugned photographs was taken by the petitioner no. 4. The impugned picture on the cover is of Vijayata, a Film Actress. The impugned picture on page 25 is a still from the film Tarzan and the impugned picture on page 30 is from the film Kaliyug Ka Ramayant directed by well known Producer-cum-Director. None of the impugned photographs was taken by the petitioner no. 4. ( 6 ) THE only question is whether the films which are exhibited for view to the general public after receiving from the Central Board of Film Censors a certificate under Section SA (1a) of the Cinematograph Act certifying the films to be suitable for public exhibition, can still photographs of such films when printed in a magazine in support of any article be challenged as obscenes. Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it. ( 7 ) THE Cinematograph Act is a Special Act the scheme of which has deliberately been, drawn up to meet the explosively expanding cinema menace. While the cinema is a great instrument for public good if geard to social ends it can be a public curse if directed to anti-social objectives. Thus, the said Act set up a Board of Censors of high calibre and expertise, provided for hearing, appeals and ultimate judicial review, precensorship and conditional exhibitions and a wealth of policing strategies - in short a special machinery and procedural justice with a host of wholesome restrictions to protect the State and Society woven in the fabric of the Act The Board of Censors under Section SB of the said Act, before certification, has to consider all the points that Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes. ( 8 ) IN the instant proceedings, as stated hereinbefore, the impugned pictures alleged to be obscenes and carried in the issue of the Anandalok dated January 25, 1986 were stills from motion pictures which have been or being screened and which have been viewed by million of movie goers. ( 8 ) IN the instant proceedings, as stated hereinbefore, the impugned pictures alleged to be obscenes and carried in the issue of the Anandalok dated January 25, 1986 were stills from motion pictures which have been or being screened and which have been viewed by million of movie goers. The aforesaid motion pictures being duly certified by the central Board of Film Censors as being suitable for public viewing, no prosecution being legally sustainable against the producer none could be sustained against the petitioners. ( 9 ) IF the Board of Censors, acting within their jurisdiction and on an application in good faith, sanctions a public exhibition, the producer and connected agencies do enter the statutory harbour and are protected because Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code exonerates them at least in view of their bona-fide belief that the certificate is justificatory. ( 10 ) RELIANCE may be placed in this connection in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kapoor v. Laxman. There Supreme Court observed as follows: The position that emerges is this, jurisprudentially viewed, an act may be an offence, definitionally speaking; but a forbidden act may not spell inevitable guilt if the law itself declares that in certain special circumstances it is not to be regarded as an offence. The chapter on General exceptions operates in this province Section 79 makes an offence a non- offence. When? Only when the offending act is actually justified by law or is bona-fide believed by mistake of fact to be so justified. If, as here, the Board of Censors, acting within their jurisdiction and, on an application made and pursued in good faith, sanctions the public exhibition, the producer and connected agencies do enter the statutory harbour and are protected because Section 790 exonerates them at least in view of their bona-fide belief that the certificate is justificatory. Thus the Trial Court when it hears the case may be appropriately apprised of the certificate under the Act and, in the light of our observations, it files the bill under Section 79 it is right for the court to discharge the accused as the charge is groundless. In the present case, the prosecution is unsustainable because Section 79 is exculpatory when read with Section 5a of the Act and the certificate issued thereunder. We quash the prosecution. In the present case, the prosecution is unsustainable because Section 79 is exculpatory when read with Section 5a of the Act and the certificate issued thereunder. We quash the prosecution. TI The said principles would equally apply to the facts of this case. In the result this application succeeds. The Rule is made absolute. Proceedings are quashed. The petitioners are discharged from their respective bail bounds. Petition allowed.