Prithviraj Vs. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor

Prithviraj vs State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 20, 2016

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1181460

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1181460
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: B. Kemal Pasha
Decided On: Jan 20, 2016
Case Number: Crl.MC. No. 7342 of 2015
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Abkari Act - Section 55 I(1), Section 55 I(2) - Film - Trial Court charged against Petitioner/Accused/Actor for an offence punishable under Section 55 I (1) and (2) of Act - Petitioner sought to quash proceedings before Trial Court - Hence this Case - Who were persons, who can be clothed with criminal liability und...

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prithviraj

Respondent

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor

Excerpt

abkari act - section 55 i(1), section 55 i(2) - film - trial court charged against petitioner/accused/actor for an offence punishable under section 55 i (1) and (2) of act - petitioner sought to quash proceedings before trial court - hence this case - who were persons, who can be clothed with criminal liability under section 55 i (1) and (2) of act - court held - when sub section (2) says, whoever exhibits or causes to exhibit , necessarily it means that owner of theatre, who exhibits such a film, can be an accused in such a case - who were persons, who can be brought within purview of whoever causes to exhibit any cinema under section 55 i(2) of act - court held - actor of film, whether he has done lead role or not, cannot be brought within purview of term whoever causes to exhibit any cinema under section 55 i(2) of act -prosecution proceedings against petitioner before trial court, based on annexure a final report, were hereby quashed - criminal miscellaneous case was allowed. paras: (3, 5) comparative citations: 2016 (1) klj 507, 2016 (1) klt 483, 2016 (1) ilr(ker) 927, .....to exhibit , necessarily it means that the owner of the theatre, who exhibits such a film, can be an accused in such a case. the next question to be considered is as to who are the persons, who can be brought within the purview of whoever causes to exhibit any cinema under section 55 i (2) of the abkari act. 4. in fact, it is a vague term. if an interpretation to the effect that the actor in the film can also be considered as a person, who causes to exhibit the cinema is taken, then not only the actor in the film; but also all the other persons behind the production and processing of the film can also be brought within the purview of that term. therefore, such an interpretation is not possible. an interpretation of such a provision has to be strictly done. it should be meant for advancing the remedy and suppressing the mischief. in such case, it seems that the person, who produces the film and also the person, who distributes such a film can only be the persons, who can be brought within the purview of the term whoever causes to exhibit any cinema. otherwise, even the light boy, who had participated in the production of a film has also to be brought within the purview of the said terms. 5. from such an aspect, this court is of the view that the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term whoever causes to exhibit any cinema under section 55 i (2) of the abkari act. matters being so, the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in c.c.no.1869 of 2014 of the judicial first class magistrate's court-iii, thiruvananthapuram, based on annexure-a final report, are liable to be quashed. in the result, this crl.m.c. is allowed and the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in c.c.no.1869 of 2014 of the judicial first class magistrate's court-iii, thiruvananthapuram, based on annexure-a final report, are hereby quashed.

Full Judgment

1. A film actor named Pridhviraj, who had occasion to act in the lead role in a film titled Seventh Day , has presently the ordeal to face the trial in C.C.No.1869 of 2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, for an offence punishable under Section 55 I (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the statutory warning that CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS INJURIOUS TO HEALTH , had to be exhibited in a particular scene in the film and that such a statuary warning exhibited in the film was not really legible and also that it did not conform to the size prescribed under Section 55 I (1) of the Abkari Act.

3. As per Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act, whoever exhibits or causes to exhibit any cinema having a scene in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) in any theatre shall be punishable for such an offence . Here the question to be considered is as to who are the persons, who can be clothed with criminal liability under Section 55 I (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. When sub-section (2) says, whoever exhibits or causes to exhibit , necessarily it means that the owner of the theatre, who exhibits such a film, can be an accused in such a case. The next question to be considered is as to who are the persons, who can be brought within the purview of whoever causes to exhibit any cinema under Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act.

4. In fact, it is a vague term. If an interpretation to the effect that the actor in the film can also be considered as a person, who causes to exhibit the cinema is taken, then not only the actor in the film; but also all the other persons behind the production and processing of the film can also be brought within the purview of that term. Therefore, such an interpretation is not possible. An interpretation of such a provision has to be strictly done. It should be meant for advancing the remedy and suppressing the mischief. In such case, it seems that the person, who produces the film and also the person, who distributes such a film can only be the persons, who can be brought within the purview of the term whoever causes to exhibit any cinema. Otherwise, even the light boy, who had participated in the production of a film has also to be brought within the purview of the said terms.

5. From such an aspect, this Court is of the view that the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term whoever causes to exhibit any cinema under Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act. Matters being so, the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report, are liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report, are hereby quashed.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2016 Same Parties Prithviraj vs State of Kerala represented by the Public Prose... Same Subject MRTP Same Judge B. Kemal Pasha

MRTP