1979 (12) TMI 157 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal granted, prosecution quashed for film producer under s. 79 IPC & s. 5A Cinematograph Act.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the prosecution against the film producer based on the protective provisions of s. 79 I.P.C. and the certification ... - Issues:1. Whether a film certified for public exhibition by the Board of Censors can be prosecuted for obscenity under s. 292 I.P.C.2. Legal effect of s. 5A of the Cinematograph Act and s. 79 I.P.C. on the public exhibition of films.3. Interpretation of s. 79 I.P.C. in relation to justification by law for acts that may constitute an offence.Analysis:The judgment revolves around a prosecution initiated against the producer, actor, photographer, exhibitor, and distributor of a film titled 'Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram' on grounds of obscenity under s. 292 I.P.C. The petitioner contended that the film had been duly certified for public show by the Board of Censors and thus should be protected from prosecution under s. 79 I.P.C. The Court delved into the legal implications of the certification process under s. 5A of the Cinematograph Act and its impact on justifying the public exhibition of films, especially in cases of alleged obscenity.The Court analyzed s. 79 I.P.C., which provides an exception where an act ceases to be an offence if justified by law or done based on a mistaken belief of being justified by law. The judgment emphasized that if the Board of Censors sanctions public exhibition in good faith and within their jurisdiction, the producer and related parties are protected under s. 79. The Court highlighted the importance of the certification process and the need to balance freedom of expression with societal restrictions, especially in the realm of cinema, which has a significant impact on the masses.The judgment underscored the specialized nature of the Cinematograph Act in regulating films and the role of the Board of Censors in ensuring compliance with legal and moral standards. It emphasized the need for a robust certification process to prevent the exhibition of films that may harm public morals. The Court also addressed the potential abuse of power by the censors and the importance of upholding public interest by preventing the certification of films that could corrupt societal values.In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, quashing the prosecution against the film producer based on the protective provisions of s. 79 I.P.C. and the certification granted under s. 5A of the Cinematograph Act. The judgment highlighted the delicate balance between artistic expression, public morality, and the regulatory framework governing the exhibition of films, emphasizing the need for a conscientious approach by the authorities involved in certifying films.