JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J. - Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1987 is filed by the State for challenging an order of acquittal dated the 10th of October, 1986, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, in Criminal Case No. 1734 of 1984. Criminal application No. 170 of 1987 is filed by Shri J.C. Shah, an advocate who was appearing for the respondent-accused before the trial court, seeking to expunge certain adverse remarks which have been made in paras 10 and 11 of the aforesaid judgment of the trial court 2. In the trial, the accused was prosecuted under sections 3 and 7 of the Bombay Cinema Regulation Act, 1953 and Rule 30 of the Cinematography Rules, 1983 red with section 7(a) Cinematography Act, 1952. On 31st of May, 1984 a police party attached to the Nandurbar city police station arranged for a raid. The raid was arranged in response to information received that the accused were exhibiting films in their "Laxmi Video, Centre" without a licence. The raiding party, which included two panch witnesses, came to the premises which are located near Amrut Theatre. They reached there at 8.15 p.m. and found that a film "Maksad" was being shown. The accused did not hold a valid licence and the cassette carrying the film did not have a certificate of the Censor Board. Several articles such as T.V., V.C.R. alongwith the cassette etc. were seized. The seized articles include a ticket book on which "Laxmi Video Centre" is printed. Certain account books were seized. Similarly, an iron sheet Board containing the advertisement of four shows of the film "Maksad" being shown at the "Laxmi Video Centre" was seized. P.W. 4 - P.S.I. Badgujar lodged his complaint (Exhibit 23) and the three accused before the Court were prosecuted. At the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Manilal Tamboli, who was one of the 18 viewers of the film at the time of the raid. He has deposed in terms of the case of the prosecution. In addition, the prosecution examined several police officers who had taken part in the raid, they are P.W. 4 Badgujar, a P.S.I., P.W. 2 More, a Head Constable, P.W. 3 Jagdale, a Police Constable and P.W. 7 Patil, a P.S.I., all attached to the Nandurbar city police station. The prosecution examined P.W. 5 Bansilal Chaudhari, a panch witness who declined to support the prosecution. The prosecution examined P.W. 5 Bansilal Chaudhari, a panch witness who declined to support the prosecution. In addition, the prosecution also examined P.W. 6 Dulab Motiram, the second panch. He also declined to support the prosecution. Both the panch witnesses were declared hostile. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. As far as accused No. 1 is concerned, he has admitted his presence at the time of the raid. All the accused have also admitted that several articles such as V.D.O., T.V. Amplifier, Fan, etc. were seized under the Panchanama (Exhibit 25). 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has refused to rely on the evidence of P.W. Manila Tamboli on the ground that he has stated in the cross-examination that his name was written in the panchanaina which' is found to be incorrect. He has further mentioned about the presence of all the three accused at the time of the raid whereas according to the police witnesses only accused No. 1 was present. As far as the police witnesses are concerned, the learned Magistrate has declined to place reliance on their evidence on the ground that the tickets which were sold to the 18 viewers had not been seized and a label bearing the inscription "made in India" which was removed from the cassette to discover the inner inscription made in Japan on the cassette was not produced before the Court and also because the chairs on which the viewers were sitting were not seized.' 5. I have, with the assistance of Shri Mirajkar the learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused, gone through the entire evidence on record. As far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned Shri Mirajkar has fairly conceded that he will be unable to press the appeal against them. He is justified in the concession given as, as per the police witnesses accused Nos,. 2 and 3 were not present. It was only accused No. 1 who was present and was found sitting on a table at the entrance with a ticket book. A Board advertising the four shows of the film "Maksad" was displayed near the entrance was seized. In my view, the evidence of P.W. 1 Manilal Tamboli cannot be thrown over-board nearly on the ground that he has deposed to the presence of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 also. A Board advertising the four shows of the film "Maksad" was displayed near the entrance was seized. In my view, the evidence of P.W. 1 Manilal Tamboli cannot be thrown over-board nearly on the ground that he has deposed to the presence of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 also. He appears to have made a mistake. The mistake appears to have crept in because accused No. 1 appears to have stated at the time of the raid that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were his partners in conducting the video parlour. All that can be said is that, that part of his evidence which seeks to implicate accused Nos. 2 and 3 will have to be discarded and therefore the trial Magistrate is justified in finding me accused Nos. 2 and 3 not guilty. Similarly, not much can be made out of the claim of Tamboli of his name being mentioned in the Panchanama. These are trivial details which cannot go to the root of the matter. As far as the incident in question is concerned, it is not even disputed by accused No. 1 that a raid took place, he was present at the time of the raid and the articles which are mentioned in the panchanama were seized. As far as the police witnesses are concerned, I have scrutinised their evidence carefully. I do not find that there is any infirmity which can cast a doubt on the veracity on their evidence. The said evidence, thus, fully corroborates the evidence of Manilal Tamboli. The seizure of the articles under the panchanama corroborate the oral evidence of the witnesses. Moreover, it is undisputed that the incriminating articles were seized. The seized articles were produced before the Court. Accused No. 1 has admitted that he was present at the time of the raid. The offence in question will have to be held as duly proved against accused No. 1. 6. Shri Shah, appearing on behalf of the accused, however, vehemently contended that the prosecution case should not be accepted as the police officers have failed to take down the names of the 18 viewers who were viewing the film at the time of the raid. The police officers have also failed to seize the tickets which must have been, purchased by the 18 viewers. The police officers have also failed to seize the tickets which must have been, purchased by the 18 viewers. In my view, it is not possible to discard the prosecution evidence merely because the names of the viewers were not taken down and their tickets were not seized. Similarly, the prosecution evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that the chairs on which the viewers were sitting were also not seized. 7. Shri Shah next contended that as far as P.W. 1 Manilal Tamboli is concerned, he has falsely implicated accused Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, according to Shri Shah, the entire case of the prosecution deserves to be negatived. In my view, merely because P.W. 1 Manilal Tamboli has erroneously mentioned the presence of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 cannot justify the rejection of the entire evidence on record. The infirmity will enure only for the benefit of accused Nos. 2 and 3. As far as accused No. 1 is concerned, the infirmity has no bearing as on the showing of accused No. 1 himself he was' present at the time of the raid. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in recording a finding that the accused No. 1 was exhibiting video film at his Laxmi Video Centre without a licence. He pas exhibited a film "Maksad" which does not pear a certificate of the Censor Board. In the circumstances, the accused No. 1 is convicted under Section 3 and 7 of the Cinematography Act, 1953 and Section 7(a) (1) of the Cinematography Act, 1952. For the aforesaid offence accused No. 1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Accused No. 1 is granted four weeks' time to deposit the fine amount. The order of acquittal passed in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is maintained. Appeal is partly allowed. The order of disposal of property is also maintained. As regards criminal application No. 170 of 1987, the learned Magistrate has observed that the trial of the case was prolonged on account of several applications being filed by Shri J.C. Shah for adjournment on the ground that he was engaged in some other courts. Without dilating into the details it is enough to state that the learned Magistrate ought not to have made serious and uncharitable observation against the learned Advocate. Without dilating into the details it is enough to state that the learned Magistrate ought not to have made serious and uncharitable observation against the learned Advocate. The observations in so far as they tend to reflect upon the professional conduct of the learned Advocate are expunged. Rule in Criminal Application No. 170 of 1987 is made absolute. Appeal allowed partly.