Delhi District Court
State vs : Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors. on 30 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK : ACMM-01 :
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI State Vs : Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors.
FIR No : 286/2001
U/s : 7 read with Section 14 of
Cinematograph Act 1952
PS : Paharganj
Unique ID No. 02401R0762782003
Date of Institution: 23.08.2003
Date of Judgment reserved for: 30.08.2014
Date of Judgment: 30.08.2014
Brief details of the case
A. Sl.No. of the case 0001613/P
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 7 read with Section 14 of
Cinematograph Act 1952
C. Date of Offence 29.05.2001
D. Name of the complainant Sh. Vijay Kumar,
Area Supervisor,
Show Time Advertisement
Pvt. Ltd., J-8, Safdarjung
Development Area, Opp. St.
Pauls School, New Delhi
E. Name of the accused (1) Anil Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Dwarka Prasad,
R/o 227, Gali No.7, Bhagat
Singh Colony, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Prem Nath Khanna
S/o Shambhu Nath Khanna
R/o 8, Rajpur Road, Delhi.
(3) Kamal Anand
S/o T.R.Anand
R/oR-109, Vaani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
FIR No.286/2001 State Vs Anil Kumar Sharma Page 1 of 7
(4) Raju Jain
S/o Mahavir Jain
R/o 38, AGCR Enclave,
New Delhi
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
G. Final order Convicted
H. Date of Order 30.08.2014
Judgment
On th accusation of violating the provisions of the
Cinematograph Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ' the act' ), accused Anil Kumar Sharma, Prem Nath Khanna, Kamal Anand and Raju Jain were sent up to face trial for committing offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 14 of the act.
Brief facts as unfolded during trial
2. The case of prosecution is that the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) authorized Sh. Vijay Kumar, who was working with Show Time Advertisement Pvt. Ltd., to detect the cases of violation of provisions of the act and initiate appropriate action. On 25.05.2001, Vijay Kumar received a lead that an English movie named ' night of demons-2' which was dubbed in Hindi under the title of ' Shaitan Ki Raat' was being projected/shown at Khanna Cinema Hall, Paharganj, New Delhi in violation of the certificate issued by CBFC. He reported to the police that the management of Khanna Cinema is showing certain portions of the film, which have been deleted by the Censor Board and thereby violating the FIR No.286/2001 State Vs Anil Kumar Sharma Page 2 of 7 conditions of certificate and committing offence. On a written complaint lodged by him, a raiding party consisting of Ct. Rajesh Kumar, Ct. Sanjay Tyagi, Ct. Devi Dayal and SI Vivek Pathak was constituted. At around, 03.30 PM, members of raiding party reached the cinema hall and Ct. Rajesh and Sh. Vijay Kumar bought tickets and started watching the matinee show (from 03.00 PM to 06.00 PM). These police officials found that certain portions of the film which were deleted by the CBFC were being shown to the viewers at the cinema hall. The allegations are that accused Anil Kumar was found operating the projector at the given time while accused Kamal Anand was managing the theater. The allegations against accused Prem Nath were that he was the owner of the cinema hall while accused Raju Jain was the distributor of the film.
3. Initially, charge-sheet was put against five other persons whose names were mentioned in column No.2, however, these persons i.e. Sanjay Jain, Rajesh Jain, Kailesh Nath Khanna, Parmeshwar Nath Khanna and Ishwar Nath Khanna were discharged by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 20.05.2008 while on 24.03.2009, charge under Section 7 read with Section 14 of the act was framed against accused Anil Kumar Sharma, Prem Nath Khanna, Kamal Anand and Raju Jain to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. In order to establish the charge, prosecution examined nine witnesses.
FIR No.286/2001 State Vs Anil Kumar Sharma Page 3 of 7
PW-1 Mukesh Kumar (LDC, CBFC) produced true copy of the certificate of film ' Shaitan ki Raat' with cut-list stating that the original certificate was handed over to the producer of the film.
PW-2 R.K.Sahani (Junior Technical Assistant, Registrar of Companies) produced certificate of incorporation of Show Time Advertisement Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the said certificate is Ex.PW-2/A. PW-3 HC Jai Singh (Special Staff) produced the original record of DD entry No.12 dated 29.05.2001 whereby information received from Vijay Kumar was recorded at the police station.
PW-4 M.L.Jain (Receiver of the cinema) mentioned that he was apppionted by the High Court of Delhi to over-see the working of cinema hall.
PW-5 R.V.Subramani (Administrative Officer, CBFC) produced the original certificate issued in respect of film titled as ' Shaitan ki Raat' (dubbed in Hindi) and the certificate issued in respect of original film in English version titled as ' Night of the demons-2' . Certified copy of the certificates are Ex.PW-1/A1, A2 & A3 and Ex.PW-1/B1, B2 & B3.
PW-6 Insp. Kuldeep Singh (Duty Officer) deposed about registration of FIR. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW-6/A. PW-7 HC Raj Bahadur (Licensing Office, Defence Colony) produced the license of Khanna Cinema which is Ex.PW-5/A. PW-8 P.Samraj (Managing Director, Show Time Advertisement Pvt. Ltd.) stated that Sh. Vijay Kumar was authorized to conduct raid in the FIR No.286/2001 State Vs Anil Kumar Sharma Page 4 of 7 cinema hall. He deposed about the raid carried out at Khanna Cinema and mentioned that the management was found violating the provisions of the act.
PW-9 HC Mahipal (MHC(M), PS Paharganj) stated that the original register No.19 has been destroyed. He produced part of the case property mentioning that the remaining part was sent to CBFC vide RC No. 81/21 dated 03.09.2003.
5. Separate statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Anil Kumar stated that he was operating the projector under the supervision of other partners of cinema hall. Accused Prem Nath Khanna admitted that he was a partner of the firm which was running the cinema hall and accused Raju Jain also admitted that he was distributor of the film. Accused Kamal Anand stated that he was Assistant Manager of the partnership firm and used to manage the affairs of the cinema hall. No defence witness was examined.
Arguments
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
7. Ld. APP contended that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt. He has argued that all the material witnesses have entered into witness box and they have fully supported the prosecution' s case. He argued that minor contradictions are bound to appear in any criminal matter and in the case in hand, there is no material contradiction which may create FIR No.286/2001 State Vs Anil Kumar Sharma Page 5 of 7 any doubt about the authenticity and veracity of the prosecution' s case and all the documents have been duly proved. He contended that accused persons have evasively admitted their guilt in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and their admission puts to rest any argument about deficiency of evidence.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel assailed the prosecution' s case. It was argued by him that there is no justification as to why independent witnesses were not joined in investigation despite the fact that police was having prior information. He argued that accused persons have not made unequivocal admission of their guilt and their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C can not be taken as a substitute for evidence. He contended that prosecution was duty bound to establish its case by leading independent evidence but it has miserably failed to do so.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
10. All the witnesses have deposed in sync. P.Samraj (PW-8) has mentioned that it was found by Sh. Vijay Kumar that the management of Khanna Cinema was showing unedited version of the dubbed movie and violating the conditions of the certification. The testimony of witnesses coupled with the admission of accused leaves no scope for doubt. Admittedly, accused Anil Kumar Sharma was operating the projector which was being used to beam the unedited version of the movie. It has come on record that accused Prem Nath Khanna was the owner of the cinema hall. FIR No.286/2001 State Vs Anil Kumar Sharma Page 6 of 7 The receiver M.L.Jain has stated that he used to organize meetings with the management of the cinema hall. It has also come on record that accused Prem Nath Khanna was authorized by the other partners to manage the affairs of the cinema hall while accused Kamal Anand was actively incharge of the affairs of the hall. Accused Raju Jain was the distributor of the movie. Section 7 of the act provides punishment to a person who alters or temper with any film after it has been certified while Section 14 of the act expressly provides punishment to the owner or person incharge of the Cinematograph who permits the exhibition of a movie in contravention of the provision of the act.
11. I am of the considered opinion that the admission of the accused persons and the evidence led by the prosecution, establishes the commission of offence under Section 14 of the act by the accused Anil Kumar Sharma, Prem Nath Khanna and Kamal Anand and commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the act by accused Raju Jain.
Be heard separately on the point of sentence Announced in open Court (Sudhanshu Kaushik) on this day of 30.08.2014 ACMM-01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
It is certified that this judgment contains 07 (seven) pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Sudhanshu Kaushik) ACMM-01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
FIR No.286/2001 State Vs Anil Kumar Sharma Page 7 of 7