Judgment : JANARTHANAM, J. ( 1 ) A cinema house going by the name National Theatre is located at Rajaji Street, Tambaram, Madras. One Mohammed Raffi and One G. Annamalai are respectively the Operator and the Assistant Operator while one Venkatachalam and one K. Venugopal are respectively the Manager and the booking clerk. ( 2 ) AN English film GIRL has been exhibited for the shows on 11. 11. 1990. At about 22. 50 hours, the Inspector of Police, Tambaram along with certain Police Personnel was on patrol duty in the vicinity of the said theatre. At that time, one of the viewers of the film exhibited in the theatre, namely one Kesavan was said to have complained to the Inspector of the obscenity looming large in the film he had seen in the theatre. ( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY thereafter the Inspector, after giving message through V. C. R. to the Superintendent of Police and on his instructions, raided the theatre and seized the film reel GIRL containing the blue film attached to the regular film. Thereafter, a case in Crime No. 1852/90, D. l. Tambaram Police Station had been registered for the alleged offence under Section 294 (A) I. P. C. and Section 7 (l) (b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Central Act XXXVII of 1952 -for short the Act) impleading the Operator, Assistant Operator, Manager and the Booking Clerk as accused 1 to 4 respectively. ( 4 ) AFTER complying with the formalities of the investigation, a final report under Section 173 (2) Cr1. P. C. had been laid for the alleged offences under Section 294 (A) I. P. C. read with Sections 7 (l) (a) (i) and (b) of the Act, which was taken on file in C. C. No. 1283 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. ( 5 ) BARRING the Manager-accused 3, the rest of the accused, namely, Operator-accused 1, Assistant Operator-accused 2 and Booking Clerk-accused 4 came forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr1. P. C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners would press before me one principal objection founded on the combined operation of Section 5a of the Act and Section 79 of the IPC to neutralize or nullify the prosecution launched against them. P. C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners would press before me one principal objection founded on the combined operation of Section 5a of the Act and Section 79 of the IPC to neutralize or nullify the prosecution launched against them. In support of such a contention, reliance is sought to be placed upon the decision in Raj Kapoor v. Laxman. ( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the bone of contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, as applicable to the facts of the present case let me consider the proposition of law laid down by the apex Court of this country in the aforesaid decision, in the light of the fact, of that case. ( 8 ) THE fact of that case are very simple. A well-publicised film Saryam, Sivam, Sundaram became the subject matter of a prosecution, presumably a pro bono publico proceeding against the producer, actor, photographer, exhibitor and distributor of that film. The complaint alleged that the fascinating title was misleadingly foul and beguiled the guileless into degeneracy. If the gravamen of this accusation were true, obscenity, indecency and vice are writ large on the picture, constituting an offence under Section 292 I. P. C. Learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint had been filed, after examining some witnesses, took cognizance of the offence and issued process to all the persons accused of such an offence. Thereupon, the producer of the film, one of the accused, moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr1. P. C. on the score that the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the judicial process and engineered by ulterior considerations and that no prosecution could be legally sustained in the circumstances of the case, the film having been duly certified for public show by the Board of Censors. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition. The aggrieved film producer had knocked at the doors of the apex court and pressed one principal objection founded on Section 79 I. P. C. to neutralise Section 292 IPC. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition. The aggrieved film producer had knocked at the doors of the apex court and pressed one principal objection founded on Section 79 I. P. C. to neutralise Section 292 IPC. ( 9 ) THE amplification of the bone of contention, as argued before the apex court, is reflected thus: Once a certificate sanctioning public exhibition of a film has been granted by the competent authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short the Actt), there is a justification for its display thereafter, and by virtue of the antidotal provisions in Section 79 of the Penal Code, the public exhibition, circulation or distribution or the production of the film, even if it be obscene, lascivious or tending to deprave or corrupt public morale, cannot be an offence. Section 292 IPC notwithstanding, the absolution is based upon the combined operation of Section 5a of the Act and Section 79 of the Penal Code. ( 10 ) AFFIXING the seal of the approval to such an argument, the apex court quashed the prosecution and said thus: 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 bonafide 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 a statutory harbour and are protected because Section 79 exonerates them at least in view of their bonafide 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 fills 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. ( 11 ) THE facts of the case on hand is altogether different and distinct from the facts of the case decided by the apex court, as referred to earlier. The materials collected during the course of investigation prima facie point out that the obscene scene is totally unconnected with the English film GIRL and the obscene scene had been connected to the film GIRL and shown as pan of the film, just prior to intermission. In such state of affairs, it cannot at all be stated that the offending act of exhibition of the blue film containing the obscene scene, which is totally unconnected with the censored film GIRL, is actually justified by law or is bonafide believed by mistake of fact to be so justified. ( 12 ) THIS apart, the salient provision adumbrated under Section 7 (1) (a) (i) and (b) of the Act throws flood of light as to the burden of proof in case of altering or tampering with in any way in any film after it has been certified. For understanding the efficacy and effect of such a provision, it is better to pen down the same, which is as under: 117 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 and which when exhibited, displays the prescribed mark of the Board and has not been altered or tampered with in any way since such mark was affixed thereto; (ii) any film, which has been certified by the Board as suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults, to any person who is not an adult, or (b) without lawful authority (the burden of proving which shall be on him), alters or tampers with in any film after it has been certified. . . . . he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day during which the offence continues. . ( 13 ) A cursory reading of the provision so extracted would point out in no uncertain terms that the burden of proof in such an eventuality is on the person responsible for the exhibition of the film. In the instant case, the material collected so far, in the shape of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr1. P. C. do prima facie reveal that the petitioners accused 1, 2 and 4 and the Manager-accused 3, who is not before this Court, are responsible for the exhibition of the film. Such being the case it is for the petitioners/accused to prove, during the course of trial, that they did not have any hand at all in altering or tampering with in any way the film GIRL, after it has been certified. ( 14 ) IN view of what has been stated above, it goes without saying that the petition deserves to, be dismissed even at the admission stage and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.