SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Pat) 71

PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and G.C.Bharuka JJ.
Regent Cinema
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 191 of 1985 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 23, 1993

The District Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to try offenses under the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 because the Act does not provide a specific procedure for the trial of offenses under the Act, and the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply, which specify that offenses under other laws are to be tried by the High Court or other courts mentioned in the First Schedule to the Code.

Headnote:

BIHAR CINEMA (REGULATION) ACT, 1954 - SEC. 7(1) - TRIAL OF OFFENCES - JURISDICTION - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SEC. 4, 26 - TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER OTHER LAWS - SPECIAL PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN THE ACT EXCLUDES THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the licensee of Regent Cinema, was fined Rs. 1,000 by the District Magistrate for violating the terms and conditions of the license by allowing minors to watch a film with an "A" certificate. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try the offense.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try the offense because the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 does not provide a specific procedure for the trial of offenses under the Act. Therefore, the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply, which specify that offenses under other laws are to be tried by the High Court or other courts mentioned in the First Schedule to the Code. The District Magistrate is not one of the courts mentioned in the First Schedule, and therefore lacks jurisdiction to try offenses under the Act.

Issues: Whether the District Magistrate has jurisdiction to try offenses under the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Sections 4 and 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provide that offenses under other laws are to be tried by the courts specified in the Act creating the offense or, if no court is specified, by the High Court or other courts mentioned in the First Schedule to the Code. Since the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 does not specify a court for the trial of offenses under the Act, the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply, and the District Magistrate is not one of the courts mentioned in the First Schedule.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order imposing a fine on the petitioner.

Judgment

Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 7-5-85 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 2/64 by which he had directed the Licensee of the Regent Cinema Hall to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000 under Sec. 7(1) of the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The case of the petitioner is that one Sushil Kumar Sinha is the managing partner and the licensee of the. Regent Theatre popularly known as Regent Cinema. On 29-2-1984 M/s Regent Cinema was exhibiting the film Inquilab which was holding "A" certificate meaning thereby that the film was to be shown/only to adults and not to be minors. At about 8.30 p. m. Shri Yogendra Prasad, Cinema Magistrate, inspected the cinema premises when the film "Inquilab" was being exhibited and found persons between the age group of 10 to 20 seeing the cinema in the cinema hall. The said persons were arrested under Sec. 34 of the Police Act and were produced before the District Magistrate for necessary action. Mr. R.P. Singh, Executive Magistrate, imposed fine on them. 15 persons out of them paid fines and were released and two of them could not pay fine and accordingly they were detained till payment of fine.

3. Thereafter a notice dated 1-3-84 (Annexure-3) was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why action be not taken under Sec. 7(1) of the Act for the violation of the terms and conditions of the Licence as well as the direction of the licensing authority for not permitting minor to see film holding "A" Certificate.

4. A show cause was filed on behalf of the petitioner by one of the partners wherein the allegation made in the show cause notice was denied and it was stated inter alia that the Partners, Manager, and employees of the theatre were always vigilant and alert in checking and stopping the non-adults from seeing the said film. It was also asserted that minors were not seeing the Cinema at the relevant time.

5. The District Magistrate, Patna, by the impugned order imposed a fine of Rs. 1, 000 upon the petitioner under Sec. 7(1) of the Act.

6. The. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that no provision have been prescribed/under the Act for the trial of the offences under the Act and as such the provision for trial as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply for the trial of the offences under the Act and in that view of the matter District Magistrate was not a competent authority to hold trial and impose fine on the petitioner and accordingly the order passed by him is without jurisdiction. The counsel appearing for the State tried to justify the impugned order on the ground that District Magistrate is a competent authority to impose fine under Sec. 7(1) of the Act.

7. Jurisdiction to try an offence is conferred upon a court by Statute which either creates the offence or creates the court. The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) contains provisions for the investigation, inquiry and trial of offences under the Indian Penal Coke and the other penal laws. So far as the offences under other penal laws are concerned, if the particular Act enacting on offences also provides procedure for investigation, inquiry or trial then the same will exclude the application of the Code. It is apt to quote Sec. 4 of the Code which reads as follows:

Sec. 4 : Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.- (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contain.

(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

8. From









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top