Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Peripogu Manohar vs State Of A.P. Rep. By Public Prosecutor on 19 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)ALD(CRI)627, 2002(1)ALT(CRI)527, 2002CRILJ3216
ORDER Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. The sole accused in C.C. No.97 of 1997 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kurnool, who, after trial for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (c) of Cinematography Act and Section 292 I.P.C., was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) (c) of the Cinematography Act, is the petitioner herein. As the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the present revision is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-2-1997 at about 10.30 P.M., on credible information, the Inspector of Police, II Town P.S., Kurnool, along with staff went to 'Sree Rama 70 M.M. Theatre' and found an English movie by name 'The Other Woman' being exhibited to the public and that the petitioner was operating the film from the cabin. On suspicion, the Inspector of Police asked the petitioner to rewind the film from the beginning and accordingly the petitioner re-wound the film and exhibited to them. On seeing the picture, they found the following scenes which are highly objectionable for exhibiting to the public: (1) In the first part of visual, Jessica is moving by exhibiting her breasts; (2) Jessica taking bath by showing her breast in the toilet; (3) Love making scene in the toilet and both the Hero and Heroine were kissing each other; and (4) Bare breasted women taking bath in the toilet, in the meantime hero entered into the toilet and stands nakedly. Jessica went near the hero in the naked shape and kissing his private parts. The police officials found the above obscene incidents exhibited to the public in the said theatre by the petitioner by collecting money. Then, they arrested the petitioner and seized the picture reels. They registered the case against the petitioner and after completion of their investigation, they filed charge sheet.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the petitioner, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs. P-1 and P-2. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) of Cinematography Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. He, however, acquitted the petitioner for the charge under Section 292 (A) I.P.C.
4. Learned senior counsel Sri Padmanabha Reddy strenuously contended that the picture is exhibited as it is which has got censor certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, Government of India, Bombay, and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner is exhibiting the film with obscene scenes. His further submission is that when the said film was exhibited at Tirupathi and when seized, the same was the subject matter of a writ petition in W.P. No.9420 of 1995 and pursuant to the orders of a learned single Judge of this court, the film was ordered to be returned to the Manager, Meena Enterprises, Guntakal, if the film reels do not contain any interpolations or additions of obscene film reels. Lastly, he submitted that the petitioner was only an operator at the relevant point of time and he cannot be prosecuted, as he is not the exhibitor of the film and prayed for acquittal of the petitioner.
5. I perused the judgments of the courts below as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to Ex.D-1-censor certificate, issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, Government of India, it imposed certain conditions which were to be fulfilled before exhibiting the film.
They are as follows:
" 3. II. Delete the lovemaking of Tracy and the man in the toilet from the point the man pays her more dollar for the second time till Tracy meets Jessica.
4. XI. Delete only all close shots of bare breasted women on the rocks and beach during the photo session.
5. XII. Delete all the visuals of lovemaking watched by young Jessica retaining once in long shot only.
6. III. Reduce by 50% the visuals of love making between Kathy and an office man watched by Jessica in the projection room. (length retained 20.00 ft.)
7. III. Reduce by 50% the visuals of photo studio session between Tracy and model Carl at Tracy's house. (length retained: 149.00 ft)
8. IV. Delete the visuals of all closed shots of love making between Jessica and Tracy retaining only two long shots specifically delete the nude Jessica walling to bathroom from the bed.
9. IV. Reduce to a flash the visuals of bare breasted Jessica taking bath (length retained: 4.00 ft.)
10. V. Delete the visuals of Jessica rolling over Greg in nude at the end. "
From the above, it is clear that the scenes that were exhibited while screening the film are the 'conditions' imposed by the Central Board of Film Certification while issuing the Censor Certificate which were to be excluded from screening and the petitioner was exhibiting all those scenes. Therefore, in my considered view, the same is contrary to the conditions or restrictions imposed by the Censor Board.
6. So far as the second submission is concerned, it has no relevance to the facts on hand. It may be true that the same film was exhibited and when seized, this court gave an interim direction. That order was not a blanket order but was issued by imposing certain conditions. As per Ex.D-3, pursuant to the directions of this court, the film was exhibited in 'P.G.R. Movie Land' Theatre at Tirupathi and after being satisfied that it does not contain interpolations or additions of obscene film reels, it was ordered to be returned to the Manager, Meena Enterprises, Guntakal. Here, the case is altogether different. In this case, P.W.3 has clearly stated that in the first reel, the heroine was shown without clothes in a bathroom scene and there were naked scenes of hero and heroine together. In the second reel also, the hero was touching the private parts of the heroine. Similarly, P.W.4 has stated that heroine was found exhibited half-naked by exposing her breasts and both hero and heroine were found exhibited with naked bodies and the heroine was found kissing the private parts of the hero. According to Ex.D-1, the above scenes are the 'conditions' imposed by the Censor Board while issuing certificate and without deleting the said scenes, the petitioner was exhibiting the film as it is.
7. So far as the third submission is concerned, it is true that the charge sheet ought to have been filed against the proprietor of the theatre also but simply on the ground that the proprietor is not arrayed as an accused in the case and the petitioner was only an operator at the relevant point of time, the petitioner cannot escape. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the courts below.
8. Coming to the sentence, as the petitioner is only an operator and acting at the instance of the proprietor of the film, it is proper for this court to take a lenient view. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in jail for one month as an under trial prisoner. Taking the above facts into consideration, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to that of the period already undergone, but however, maintaining the fine amount.
9. In the result, while confirming the conviction imposed against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) of the Cinematography Act and the sentence of fine awarded by the courts below, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the courts below is modified to the period already undergone by him.
10. With the above modification in sentence, the criminal revision case is dismissed.