Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2327 (ALL)

Kuljeet Singh v. State Of U. P.

2006-09-13

B.B.AGARWAL, PRADEEP KANT

body2006
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kant, B.B. Agarwal, JJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, and learned additional chief standing counsel Sri Rakesh Bajpai. 2. The petitioners licensee under the provisions of the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 are running a cinema hall known as 'Vishal Picture Palace' in Utraula, district Balrampur. On 31st December, 2005 the police came to the aforesaid cinema hall after the evening show was over and arrested two of the employees of the cinema hall and also took away the reel/print of the movie which was running at that time in the cinema hall. 3. The First Information Report was registered u/s 292C of the Indian Penal Code on 31.12.2005 and the licence of the petitioners was suspended by the District Magistrate, Balrampur on 9.1.2006 which is still under suspension. The District Magistrate required the petitioners to deposit the income which they have derived from the objectionable shows, which amount to the tune of Rs. 22,569, has been deposited by the petitioners on 8.2.2006. It is the case of the petitioners that after deposit of the amount they approached the District Magistrate and the Entertainment Commissioner for allowing them to run the picture hall and exhibit films, but this prayer was not accepted. However, the petitioners moved an application on 25th May, 2006 for compounding of the offence u/s 8A of the Act. 4. The petitioners were found exhibiting pornographic film which was absolutely of prohibited degree film, a fact which is more detailed in Annexure-9, i.e., the order of compounding passed by the District Magistrate. There is no whisper that the petitioners did not indulge in exhibiting pornographic and obscene film, which was neither licensed nor cleared from the Censor Board, nor the licence did permit exhibition of such film. 5. The District Magistrate on their compounding prayer passed an order on 1.6.2006 wherein looking to the seriousness of the offence, and after taking into consideration the number of shows, exhibited, has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 95,000 as compounding fee. 6. Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute even before us that the offence was not committed by the petitioners but the only grievance of the petitioners which is put forward by them is that though they were prepared to pay compounding fee but Rs. 95,000 as compounding fee. 6. Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute even before us that the offence was not committed by the petitioners but the only grievance of the petitioners which is put forward by them is that though they were prepared to pay compounding fee but Rs. 95,000 is an excessive amount, which has been wrongly calculated by the District Magistrate by misinterpreting the provisions of Sections 8 and 8A of the aforesaid Act. Sections 8 and 8A read as under: 8. Penalty. - (1) If the owner or person in-charge of a Cinematography uses or allows to be used, or if the owner or occupier of a place permits that place to be used for exhibition by means of cinematography, or if a person gives exhibition by means of video or keeps a video library, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or of the conditions and restrictions upon or subject to which licence has been granted under this Act, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both and in the case of continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues. (2) if any person prevent the entry of any officer duly authorized in this behalf, or otherwise obstructs such officer in the discharge of this duties imposed by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder, he shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. 8A. Compounding of offences. - (1) Any offence punishable under this Act may, subject to any general or special order of the State Government in this behalf, be compounded by the Licensing Authority, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, on realisation of such amount of composition fee as he things fit, not exceeding the maximum amount of fine fixed for the-offence. (2) Where the offence is so compounded: (a) before the institution of the prosecution, the offender shall not be liable to prosecution for such offence and shall, if in custody, be set at liberty; (b) after the institution of the prosecution the composition shall amount to acquittal of the offender. 7. (2) Where the offence is so compounded: (a) before the institution of the prosecution, the offender shall not be liable to prosecution for such offence and shall, if in custody, be set at liberty; (b) after the institution of the prosecution the composition shall amount to acquittal of the offender. 7. Section 8A prescribes an outer limit of composition fee at the discretion of the Licensing Authority, which shall not exceed the maximum amount of fine fixed for the offence. The section, however, does not prescribe any independent amount of fine for the offence. Section 8 which deals with the penalty in fact prescribes the punishment for the offences under the Act, prescribing simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both and in the case of continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues. 8. Relying upon the terminology used in Section 8, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the offence of exhibiting/showing obscene film which was though repeated by the petitioners, would only make them liable to pay the fine with maximum of Rs. 5000 for the first offence and Rs. 500 per day for the continuing offence. 9. Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned additional chief standing counsel submits that interpretation given to the aforesaid provision of Section 8 is not in accordance with the object or the purpose for which it has been enacted. Exhibition of pornographic and obscene film, which is not permitted to be exhibited under any licence, if exhibited continuously, it would always be a fresh offence for every show and therefore, the District Magistrate has rightly calculated the amount of compounding fee. He also submits that the offence like maintenance of the picture hall, including the non-maintenance of toilets etc. are such offence which may be treated as continuing offence for the purposes of penalty of Rs. 500 per day but an offence in which the cinema hall is continuously showing prohibited film and that too pornographic it would always be a fresh offence, in every show and cannot be taken as a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act. 10. We find force in the argument raised by the State counsel. 500 per day but an offence in which the cinema hall is continuously showing prohibited film and that too pornographic it would always be a fresh offence, in every show and cannot be taken as a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act. 10. We find force in the argument raised by the State counsel. In case the petitioners' plea is accepted it would mean that the licensee would keep on repeating the offence in every show and every day at the petty penalty of Rs. 500 per day though he may be showing 3-4 or any number of shows every day. This cannot be the intention of the provisions of Section 8A read with Section 8 of the Act. Exhibition of film in each show thus would constitute a fresh offence every time. 11. The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the State persuades us to hold that the offence like the aforementioned shall always be a fresh offence in every show and the District Magistrate was right in calculating compounding fee treating to be a fresh offence each show. In this regard we may also add that even otherwise, the facts of the case are such that we do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of exercising our discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. 12. The petition is dismissed.