Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Deepu Sahu @ Pradeep Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2022 cites

Raj Kapoor vs Laxman on 14 December, 1979

7. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the case was instituted alleging therein that mobile number of the petitioner was used for generating Form 508. The procedure to generate Form 508 is noted above in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. It is an admitted fact that there is process for generating form on the basis of OTP for that purpose only mobile of the petitioner has been used for generating OTP by the drivers of the trucks taking the consignment to one State to another. Consignment in question was not the subject matter of sale and purchase in the State of Jharkhand. Only requirement was to comply the Form 508 to the vehicles to pass through the State of Jharkhand and consignment to deliver in another State. There are provision of prosecution under section 84 onwards of the said Act and penalty is prescribed under Chapter-X of the said Act. It is well settled that if Special Act is there, Sections of I.P.C. are not attracted. Reference may be made to the case of " Raj Kapoor" (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 45 - V R Iyer - Full Document

K. A. Abbas vs The Union Of India & Anr on 24 September, 1970

"7. Indeed, the Penal Code is general, the Cinematograph Act is special. The scheme of the latter is deliberately drawn up to meet the explosively expanding cinema menace if it were not strictly policed. No doubt, the cinema is a great instrument for public good if geared to social ends and can be a public curse if directed to anti-social objectives. The freedom of expression, the right to be equally treated and the guarantee of fair hearing before heavy investments in films are destroyed belong to Indian citizens under the Constitution. But all freedom is promise, not a menace and, therefore, is subject to socially necessary restraints permitted by the Constitution. Having regard to the instant appeal of the motion picture, its versatility, realism, and its coordination of the visual and aural senses, what with the art of the cameraman with trick photography, vistavision and three dimensional representation, the celluloid art has greater capabilities of stirring up emotions and making powerful mental impact so much so the treatment of this form of art on a different footing with pre-censorship may well be regarded as a valid classification, as was held in K.A. Abbas [K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1971) 2 SCR 446 : (1970) 2 SCC 780] . Maybe, art cannot be imprisoned by the bureaucrat and aesthetics can be robbed of the glory and grace and free expression of the human spirit if governmental palate is to prescribe the permit for exhibition of artistic production in any department, more so in cinema pictures. So it is that a special legislation viz. the Act of 1952, sets-up a Board of Censors of high calibre and expertise, provides hearings, appeals and ultimate judicial review, pre-censorship and conditional exhibitions and wealth of other policing strategies. In short, 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. After having elaborately enacted such a legislation can it be said that a certificate granted under it by expert authority can be stultified by a simple prosecution or a shower of prosecutions for an offence under Section 292 IPC, driving the producer to satisfy a "lay" Magistrate that the certificate of the Board of Censors notwithstanding, the film was offensive? The Board under Section 5-B has to consider, before certification, all the points Section 292 IPC prescribes. Indeed, neither the Penal Code nor the Cinematograph Act can go beyond the restrictions sanctioned by Part III of the Constitution and once the special law polices the area it is pro tanto out of bounds for the general law. At least as a matter of interpretation, Section 79 IPC resolves the apparent conflict between Section 292 IPC and Part II of the Act relating to certification of films If the Board blunders, the Act provides remedies. We are sure the public-spirited citizen may draw the attention of the agencies under the Act to protect public interest."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 112 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1