Judgment :- Thomas, J. A film screened at "Sree Venkitaramana Talkies" at Uduma (in Kasaragod District) contains portions which the police alleged to be prurient in content and derogatory to decency. The owner and projector-operator of the theatre are now being charge sheeted by the police for offences under S.292(a) of the Indian Penal Code and also Ss.5A as well as S.7(a)(i) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short "the Act'). It seems that S.4 of the Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986 is also pitted against the said persons. They have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case for quashing the charge sheet. 2. The offending portions are included in a film, the title of which is "Prayapoorlhiyayavarkku Mathram" which in English means "adults only". It is alleged that the film contains portions disapproved or unapprovcd by the Board of Film Certification (for convenience, it is referred to as "Censor board ") and it was screened in the theatre on 7-11-1989. A description of the offending parts in the film has been given in annexure- a. No contention is raised here that the impugned portions in the film are neither obscene nor indecent, but counsel submitted that petitioners would reserve their right to contend otherwise, if need be, at a later stage. 3. A learned single judge, before whom the matter came first, felt that the questions raised call for authentic pronouncement and hence referred the case to a Division Bench. Two more persons were also arrayed as accused in the FIR as they were producer and distributor respectively of the film. But after investigation, they were deleted from the array of accused on the ground that the said film was not supplied by either of them. In the Criminal Miscellaneous Case they are also made parties. i 4. Petitioners seek to quash the proceedings on two premises. First is that when the Censor Board has granted "A" Certificate to a film, an exhibitor thereof cannot be made liable for any punishment under any law relating to obsccnily in respect of any matter contained in the said film. Second is that, since "A" Certificate has been granted by the Censor Board in respect of the said film, the exhibitor gets shelter under S.79 of the IPC. 5. In support of the first contention, learned counsel relied on the proviso to S.5A(i) of the Act. Second is that, since "A" Certificate has been granted by the Censor Board in respect of the said film, the exhibitor gets shelter under S.79 of the IPC. 5. In support of the first contention, learned counsel relied on the proviso to S.5A(i) of the Act. It reads thus: "Provided that the applicant for the certificate, any distributor or exhibitor or any other person to whom the rights in the film have passed shall not be liable for punishment under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in the film for which certi ficate has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b)". 6. In understanding the aforesaid proviso, an understanding of the relevant provisions of the Act is a necessary precursor. The Act was passed mainly for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematographs. S.3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to constitute the Censor Board. S.4 enjoins on a person who desires to exhibit a particular film to apply to the Censor Board for a certificate sanctioning the film for public exhibition with or without restrictions. The Censor Board, after examining the film, in the prescribed manner, can grant a "U" Certificate for unrestricted public exhibition if it finds that the film is suitable for such exhibition. If it is not so suitable, but is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults only, the Censor Board has power to grant "A" Certificate. However, if it is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or class, the Censor Board can grant "S" Certificate. These features have been covered in S.5A(i) of the Act. A right of appeal is provided to the applicant who is aggrieved by an order refusing to grant a particular type of certificate desired by him. Such appeal would lie before a tribunal constituted under S. 5D of the Act. Central Government has revisional powers over any order passed by the Censor Board or tribunal. The above salient features of the Act would show that an exhibition of a cinematographic film is subject to the control of Censor Board and that it is not for him alone to decide whether a film issuilable for public-screening. Central Government has revisional powers over any order passed by the Censor Board or tribunal. The above salient features of the Act would show that an exhibition of a cinematographic film is subject to the control of Censor Board and that it is not for him alone to decide whether a film issuilable for public-screening. No doubt, the exhibitor is insulated from penal liabilities under obscenity, if he succeeds in showing that in the respect of the said film as such "A" Certificate has been granted by the Censor Board. 7. Thus, a certificate envisaged in S.5A(i) of the Act is a shield against prosecution proceedings initialed against a producer or distributor or exhibitor on the charge that the film offends a particular law relating to obscenity. But the shield can be used only in respect of the matters contained in the film "for which certificate has been granted" under the sub-section. It is not a shield which can be used against prosecution proceedings for exhibiting obscenity unprotected by the certificate or exhibiting obscenity by inserting portions therein for which certificate has not been granted. In other words, the protective umbrella embedded in the proviso must strictly be confined to the matter in respect of which alone the certificate has been granted. No legislation can be presumed to sanction or approve the misuse or abuse of its own provisions and the protective measures envisaged in the statute cannot be widened to cover any malapropism or malfeasance adopted under the sunshade of the statute. "A" Certificate granted under S.SA(i) is not a passport permitting to introduce or interpose unapproved or disapproved portions. 8. Here the allegation is that petitioners exhibited portions which are unapproved or disapproved, or scissored by the Censor Board by linking them with the film after securing the certificate from Censor Board. If the prosecution succeeds in proving the same, the exhibitor cannot take refuge under the proviso to S.SA(i) of the Act. 9. In support of the second contention, learned counsel invited our attention to S.79 of the IPC. It reads thus: "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a m is take of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it". It reads thus: "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a m is take of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it". The first limb of the Section has no application here particularly in the light of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs. The first limb would thus elude from the exhibitor if prosecution succeeds in proving their allegations. But the second limb of the section would protect a person who, by reason of a mistake, of fact, believes himself to be justified by law, but such belief must be in good faith. The concerned person has to establish that he was misguided in good faith. When Penal Code specified doing of a thing in good faith, the expression has a special connotation. S.52 of the IPC defines "good faith" thus: "Nothing is said to be done or believed in °good faith' which is done or believed without due care and attention". It is for the person concerned to establish that in spite of adopting due care and attention, by a mistake of fact, he happened to believe that he is justified by law in exhibiting the film. S.79 of the IPC is one of the general exceptions in the Code. When any accused relics on any of the general exceptions or any special exception provided in law, the burden is on him to make out facts to support the same. This is the purport of S.105 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Section indicates that the presumption is in favour of absence of circumstances. The ending words in the Section that "the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances" are sufficient to strike the caution that the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption. Of course, the burden is not akin to that of a prosecution in a criminal case, but the accused can succeed by discharging the burden showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour. Then it becomes a point to be decided on evidence and not something to be presumed in his favour at the threshold itself. (Vide Hadbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab - AIR 1966 SC 97 and Ramakrishnan v. Subbarama Saslrical -1986 KLT 1361). 10. Then it becomes a point to be decided on evidence and not something to be presumed in his favour at the threshold itself. (Vide Hadbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab - AIR 1966 SC 97 and Ramakrishnan v. Subbarama Saslrical -1986 KLT 1361). 10. But learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the decision in RajKapoor v. Laxman (AIR 1980 SC 605) in support of the contention that S.79 of the IPC can be invoked even before the case goes to the stage of evidence. The said case was in respect of a film produced by the cine celebrity Raj Kapoor tilled as "Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram". A private complaint was filed against Raj Kapoor for the offence under S.292 of the IPC alleging that the said film contained portions transgressing into the forbidden frontiers of pruriency. The Magislra le took cognizance of the offence and issued notice to Raj Kapoor. A pclilion filed before the High Court for quashing the complaint was dismissed despite the contention that the film had been given "A" certificate by the Censor Board. Then Raj Kapoor approached the Supreme Court raising the contention that he was protected under S.79 of the IPC. The important aspect to be pointed out is that there was no dispute in the said case that the film "Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram" was covered by "A" certificate issued by the Censor Board and the complainant had no allegation that Raj Kapoor had inserted any scissored or unapproved portion in the film. It was the first limb of S.79 which was pressed into service in the said case. The point considered in the decision was whether Raj Kapoor was "justified" by law as his film was covered by the certificate. The Supreme Court pointed out that when a special machinery and processual justice and a host of wholesome restrictions to protect State and society are woven into the fabric of the Act, the exhibitor has legal justification in a case where it was admitted that the film including the offensive portions had the cover of "A" Certificate issued under S.5A(1) of the Act. On the admitted facts in Raj Kapoor's case S.79 would be available to him. On the admitted facts in Raj Kapoor's case S.79 would be available to him. Here also, if the court is satisfied thai the impugned film when screened at the petitioners' theatre contained only the same matter as covered by the certificate issued by the Censor Board, benefit of S.79 of the IPC can cerlainly be claimed by the petitioners. But when the allegation is that the film contains added portions, it is loo premature a stage for reaching the aforesaid satisfaction. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.