A. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : In this application the writ petitioner prays for stopping of any further investigation pursuant to an F. I. R. dated 10. 8. 88, a copy whereof is at page 25 of the annexures to the writ petition. According to the said Report four film of pornographic nature were seized from the video shop of the writ petitioner. It is stated in the said F. I. R. that the same amounts to an offence under section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. ( 2 ) THE said section is reproduced below :"7. Penalties for contravention of this part. . . . . . . . (1) if any person- (a) exhibits or permits to be exhibited in any place-- (i) any film other than a film which has been certified by the Board as suitable for unrestricted public exhibition or for public exhibition restricted to adults (or to members of any profession or any class of persons) and which, when exhibited, displays the prescribed mark of the Board and has been altered or tampered with in any way since such mark was affixed thereto. " ( 3 ) A bare perusal of the above sub-section shows that the essential ingredient of the offence is either an exhibition of an uncertified film or a permission of the exhibition of such a film. ( 4 ) IT is on record, as mentioned in the application for vacating of the interim order, verified by an affidavit of Rakhohari Banerjee dated 28th June, 1989, that investigation under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also under way. However, there is no mention either in the F. I. R. or in the application for vacating of the interim order that there has been any exhibition by the writ petitioner of any of e said four seized films or any permission for such exhibition. ( 5 ) THE Cinematograph Act being an old one of 1952, the sections and sub-sections therein are not wholly adapted towards the new situation that has arisen upon widespread introduction of video films into the market. When cinematographic films alone for projection on the big screen were in question, the prohibition against an exhibition itself of an uncertified film or a prohibition against a permission for such exhibition might have suited the needs of the day. When cinematographic films alone for projection on the big screen were in question, the prohibition against an exhibition itself of an uncertified film or a prohibition against a permission for such exhibition might have suited the needs of the day. Today it so happens that in law the mere stocking of pornographic video cassettes in a shop is not an offence even though this might, be very likely to lead to an exhibition of a film or to the permission for such an exhibition. In a case of criminal nature it is necessary that the actual facts, constituting the ingredients of offence must all be particularly proved arid it is not enough that such facts are merely shown to be extremely likely to occur, or to have occurred. ( 6 ) IN paragraph 7 of the said vacating application it has been stated that the Investigating Officer has seen himself the four video films. Unfortunately what was necessary for at all raising any possibility of an offence was not the Investigating Officer himself seeing any of the films but some allegation, charge or indication, of whatever slight degree, that the said four films had been shown to, or had been permitted to be seen by anybody by the accused-writ petitioner. Even though a long time has passed since the incident yet the respondents have not put on record any facts that came to light prior to the passing of the order dated 14. 8. 88 indicating that the films had been exhibited or permitted to be exhibited by the accused-writ petitioner. Under these circumstances it appears that dicta in the Sanchaita case reported in AIR 1982 SC949 (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Saha and Ors. and State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sanchaita Investment and Ors) are applicable and that the FIR in question should not be permitted to form the starting point of any investigation by the police at all. ( 7 ) ON 14. 8. 88 an interim order had been passed to the following effect : present the Hon'ble Mrs. Justice monjula BOSE ___________________ august, 14, 1988 in Residence-By Special Assignment at 10. 30 a. m. Mr. Kapur with Mr. R. Deb, Mr. S. Dube and Mr. Menon moves. The Court : "in view of the urgency pleaded, the requirement of Rule 27 A is dispensed with. Justice monjula BOSE ___________________ august, 14, 1988 in Residence-By Special Assignment at 10. 30 a. m. Mr. Kapur with Mr. R. Deb, Mr. S. Dube and Mr. Menon moves. The Court : "in view of the urgency pleaded, the requirement of Rule 27 A is dispensed with. Let a Rule Nisi do issue as prayed for; returnable six weeks hence. There will be an ad interim order of injunction in terms of prayers (g) (iii)-limited to the Petitioner No. 2 and stay of further proceedings in terms of prayer (h) of the petition. Liberty is given to the petitioners to communicate this order to the learned Magistrate. The petitioners will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law regarding the other reliefs sought for and the same have not been adjudicated upon. Let it appear as an Application, before the Regular Bench on 23. 8. 88. Liberty is given to the Respondents to apply for variation and/ or vacating the interim order upon notice to the petitioner. Leave is given to put in the requisite Court Fees on the petition and have the stamp punched by 16. 8. 88. Let the Special Assignment be kept on the record. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking. " ( 8 ) IT is a matter of some seriousness that in spite of the aforesaid lack of materials, it should be alleged paragraph 15 of the vacating application that when the order was passed "the learned Judge did not apply her mind???. ". In my opinion, on a prima facie view of the matter, the said irresponsible and reckless allegation constitutes a contumacious reflection upon the action of a learned Judge discharging judicial duties. Such an imputation seeks to bring down the reputation of the Judiciary in the estimation of the public eye. The writ petitioner and/or any body else interested in this matter is given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in contempt in this regard. Such an imputation seeks to bring down the reputation of the Judiciary in the estimation of the public eye. The writ petitioner and/or any body else interested in this matter is given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in contempt in this regard. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances above, there is no escape to the conclusion, that the F. I. R. was devoid of allegations that could at all constitute the basic ground of any criminal conviction, and that the police investigation undertaken thereafter prior to the interim order was also totally misguided in that the essential ingredient as to exhibition or permission for exhibition was not inquired into at all. ( 10 ) UNDER these circumstances the interim order, passed on 14th August, 1988, which, with the greatest of respect, was passed upon a just and complete view of the matter, even though the learned Judge had presumably less time at her disposal and was not addressed by both sides as I have been addressed, should be confirmed permanently, as the full and final relief in this writ application. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs of this application assessed at 120 G. Ms to be paid personally by the respondent No. 3 Rakhohari Banerjee who has affirmed the affidavit verifying the vacating application which contains the aforesaid reckless allegation wrongfully made against the learned Judge who had passed the interim order which I have had the pleasure to confirm permanently. ( 11 ) ALL parties to act on a xerox copy of the operative part of this, dictated order on the usual undertaking. Interim order extended.