Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, subject to
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
The Petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 7 of the A.P. Cinematograph Act, 1952 (In short, ‘the Act’). It is not a State Act, but it is a Central Act called the Cinematograph Act. It is alleged that the posters of telugu cinema titled “Simha” did not exhibit mandatory C.B.F.C. certified title ‘A’ and that the said posters also did not contain film publicity screening Committee seal, which are mandatory. It is contended by the Petitioners’ counsel that the publicity by way of posters consists of two parts namely pre-censor publicity and post-censor publicity and that pre-censor publicity cannot be expected to contain film certification mark on posters whereas, the same can be expected only in post-sensor publicity. It is further contended by the Petitioners’ counsel that the posters contain names of the persons connected with the film and that in spite of it, name of producer of the film, distributor of the film and owner of the cinema hall were not given in the report. The publicity material contains only name of producer and at times name of the distributing Company and not all times. Criminal law does not require mentioning of names in reports or complaints. It only proceeds on the basis of identity of persons. Therefore, there is no need to mention names of the accused with their full particulars in report. Whether the de-facto complainant referred the posters in his report relating to pre-censor publicity or post-censor publicity is a question of fact, which the Investigating Officer has to find out during investigation. Undoubtedly, pre-censor publicity need not contain the censor certification mark, because by that time censor certificate was not received. If the posters against which this report is given relates to pre- censor publicity, then the police will drop the case after investigation. There are no grounds now to quash F.I.R. in this case at its threshold. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, subject to the observations made herein. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 13-10-2011. Dsh
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 146 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4482 OF 2010 (Date.13-10-2011). Dsh.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, subject to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P. Cinematograph Act, 1952 — s. 7.
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.