JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.— Sublime titles of cinematograph films may enchant or entice and only after entry into the theatre the intrinsic worth of the picture because-the picture dawns on the viewer. The experience may transfer because the picture is great or the audiencee may lose lucre and culture in the bargain. Mere titles may not, therefore, attest the noxious or noble content of the film. Sometimes the same film may produce contrary impacts and what one regards as lecherous another man may consider elevating. Be that as it may, a well publicised film Satyam, Sivam, Sundaram became the subject-matter of a prosecution, presumably a pro bona publico proceeding, by the respondent against the petitioner and other who are the producer, actor, photographer, exhibitor and distributor of that film. The complaint alleged that the fascinating title was misleading, foul and beguiled the guileless into degeneracy. If the gravament of this accusation were true, obscenity, indecency and vice are writ large on the picture, constituting an offence under S.292 I.P.C. The Magistrate, after examining some witnesses, took cognisance of the offence and issued notice to the accused. Thereupon, the producer, namely, the present petitioner, moved the High Court under S. 482 Cr, P. C. on the score that the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the judicial process and engineered by ulterior considerations and that no prosecution could be legally sustained in the circumstances of the case, the film having been duly certified for public show by the Board of Censors. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, ignoring the contention that the film had been given A certificate by the Central Board of Film Censors and finding in the prosecution nothing frivolous or vexatious nor any material to quash the proceedings.The aggrieved film producer has arrived in this Court hopefully, and pressed before us on principal objection founded on S. 292 I.P.C. We do not find this contention apparent in the High Courts judgment, but since the facts are admitted and the question of law is of some moment, we have chosen to hear the petitioner on the invalidatory plea that once a certificate sanctioning public exhibition of a film has been granted by the competent authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short, the Act),there is a justification for its display thereafter, and by virtue of the antidotal provisions in S. 79 of the Penal Code, the public exhibition, circulation or distribution or the production of the film, even if it be obscene, lascivious or tending to deprave or corrupt public morale, cannot be an offence, S. 292 I.P.C. notwithstanding. The absolution is based upon the combined operation of S. 5A of the Act and S. 79 of the Penal Code.

2. The issue is of some importance since the cinema is one of the major mass media with millions of viewers and many millions in investment. The respondent-complainant, despite notice having been served on him, did not enter appearance. We requested the Additional Solicitor General, Shri Banarjee, to help the court unravel the legal tangle and he responded promptly and eruditely rendered industrious assistance. We record our appreciation of the services of Shri Banerjee.

3. The sole point for decision is the legal effect of the combined operation of S. 5A of the Act and S. 79 I.P.C. But we will assume for purpose of argument that the facts stated in the complaint prima facie attract the offence under Section 292 I.P.C. Supposing such a film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Censors, acting within their jurisdiction under the Act, thereby sanctioning the public exhibition of the film, does it furnish a justification in law in doing the act which, in the absence of such certification, may constitute an offence under S. 292 I.P.C.?

4. Section 79 I.P.C. runs thus:

79. Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of