STATE OF GUJARAT v. KANUBHAI J SALET
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Mr.Umesh Trivedi, learned Addl. P.P. for the appellant. SERVED for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 --------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA Date of decision: 10/09/96
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1.(cid:9)This State Appeal against the acquittal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-3-91 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar in Criminal Case No.5016/89 whereby the present respondents had been acquitted of the offence under S.7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
2.(cid:9)On 20-8-89, 472 video cassettes without certificate of Censor Board, certain blank video cassettes and some other video cassettes, which were defective, were recovered from the possession of the respondents. Value of these cassettes were assessed to be Rs.65,800/- and they were sought to be prosecuted on the basis that they were running a Video Cassette Bank. The trial court has recorded that the Panchas had turned out to be hostile and both the Panchanamas i.e. Exhs.12 and 13 therefore, could not prove the recovery of these cassettes from the accused persons. The Panchas are common witnesses on both these documents and it has also been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class that the prosecution has also failed to show that the respondents were not having the necessary documents with regard to the VCR etc. The prosecution failed to give any cogent proof in support of its case against the three respondents-accused persons and accordingly the three respondents were acquitted.
3.(cid:9)I have gone through the impugned order and the relevant papers and I find that the recovery of the cassettes is not proved and the prosecution has also failed to prove beyond doubt that the respondents were not having the necessary documents in their possession with regard to the VCR. The order passed by the trial court, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity. When the Panchas had turned out to be hostile, the recovery can not be made use of to punish the respondents.
4.(cid:9)Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and having gone through the reasons given by the trial court, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. There is no substance in this Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. -0-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 10 Sep 1996. The bench was M R CALLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.