Civil Appeal No 1523 of 1988
From the Judgment and order dated 1341988 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 479 of 1988
KK Venugopal AN Haksar section Vazifdar Raian Karanjawala Mrs Manik Karanjawala and Hardeep section Anand for the Appellant
B Datta Additional Solicitor General P Parmeswaran SC Birala and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgement of the court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
This appeal by special leave is filed against an interim order of injunction issued by the High Court of Bombay Aurangabad Bench on 13th April 1988 directing the three respondents I Union of India 2 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Parliament House New Delhi and 3 State of Maharashtra not to telecast and show episodes 12 and 13 of a serial entitled Honi Anhoni  pending disposal of Writ Petition No 479 of 1988 filed by Respondent No 1 Lokvidayan Sanghatana a registered social organisation of Pune having its branch at Aurangabad and Respondent No 2 Mahila Sangharsha Samiti Aurangabad represented by one of its members Smt
Anagna Patil
The writ petition was in the nature of a public interest litigation
The prayer in the writ petition was that the respondents should be directed not to telecast the serial as such telecasting was not in the public interest
The serial Honi Anhoni  was being telecast by the Doordarshan which was run by the Union of India on every Thursday between 9 pm and 930 pm
The 12th episode of the said serial was to be telecast on 14th April 1988 and the 13th episode was to be telecast on 21st April 1988
By virtue of the interim order passed on 13th April 1988
episode No 12 could not be telecast on 14th April 1988
Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the High Court the appellant Odyssey Communication Pvt Ltd which was the producer of the serial Honi Anhoni  filed the special leave petition before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India out of which this appeal arises
The said petition came up before this Court for consideration on April 2 1 1988
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant this Court granted special leave to prefer an appeal against 489 the order passed by the High Court and also stayed the operation of the interim order dated 13th April 1988 passed by the High Court until further orders and permitted the Doordarshan to telecast the serial in question
In view of the above order the 12th episode of the serial was telecast on the 21st of April 1988
The appeal was heard on the 28th of April 1988 and this Court reserved judgment on the appeal
At the end of the hearing of the appeal on 28th April 1988 the Court expressed that it would set aside the order passed by the High Court against which the appeal had been filed and would give reasons in the course of its judgment
Since the order of stay passed by the Court was allowed to remain in force the 13th episode which was the last episode of the serial was telecast on the 28th April 1988
The grounds mentioned in the writ petition in support of the prayer made in it were that in each and every episode telecast in the serial an obscure and mysterious atmosphere was being created due to the way of the presentation of the episodes and that it had created fear in the minds of the common viewers and especially of children as the serial had the effect of confirming blinds faiths superstitious beliefs in stories of ghosts rebirth precognition etc
and of spreading the unscientific way of thinking and blind beliefs
It was further contended that it was the duty of the State not to encourage blind beliefs amongst the public by telecasting such episodes
It was on the basis of these grounds the High Court was requested to grant the interim order of injunction
The appellant was the producer of the said serial yet the appellant was not made a party to the writ petition
But on its application the appellant was impleaded as a party on 1241988
On 1341988 the High Court passed the impugned order of temporary injunction
The appellant rushed to this Court immediately thereafter with the above said special leave petition
The appellant has stated before us that the said serial and in particular episodes 12 and 13 did not emphasise superstitious beliefs but on the contrary criticised and condemned superstition and blind faith as was ex facie apparent from the scripts of episodes 12 and 13 produced before this Court
It is stated that at the end of both the episodes a doctor and a professor gave a scientific explanation for the unusual occurrences portrayed therein and considered by people as supernatural phenomena
It is alleged that in the 13th episode after a scientific explanation of what had taken place the viewers were told as follows All those who without thinking spread blind faith ought to feel ashamed of themselves
We request all of you that whenever any unusual occurrencces takes place or a 490 seemingly imporbable event occurs before believing in it to reflect as to whether there is a scientific reason for it or is it purely psychological by nature
If all of us exercise such caution we believe that the malady of blind faith will soon be eradicated by our society
 The appellant further pleaded that the High Court was in error in issuing the order of injunction without giving a reasonable opportunity to it the producer which was likely to be affected by the order to explain that the writ petitioners had no right to move the Court in the circumstances of the case
It can no longer be disputed that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 191a of the Constitution of India which can be curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India
The right is similar to the right of a citizen to publish his views through any other media such as newspapers magazines advertisement hoardings etc
subject to the terms and conditions of the owners of the media
We hasten to add that what we have observed here does not mean that a citizen has a fundamental right to establish a private boardcasting station or television center
On this question we reserve our opinion
It has to be decided in an appropriate case
The relevant part of Article 19 of the Constitution reads thus 19
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc 1 All citizens shall have the right a to freedom of speech and expression       2 Nothing in sub clause a of clause 1 shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State friendly relations with foreign States public order decency or moral 491 ity or in relation to contempt of court defamation or incitement to an offence
         Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is always very zealously guarded by this Court
It was not the case of the petitioners in the Writ Petition that the exhibition of serial Honi Anhoni  was in contravention of any specific law or direction issued by the Government
They had not alleged that the Doordarshan had shown any undue favour to the appellant and the sponsoring institutions resulting in any financial loss to the public exchequer
The objection to the exhibition of the film had however been raised by them on the basis that it was likely to spread false or blind beliefs amongst the members of the public
They had not asserted any right conferred on them by any statute or acquired by them under a contract which entitled them to secure an order of temporary injunction against which this appeal is filed
The appellant had denied that the exhibition of the serial was likely to affect prejudicially the well being of the people
The Union of India and the Doordarshan have pleaded that the serial was being telecast after following the prescribed procedure and taking necessary precaution
In such a situation the High Court should not have immediately proceeded to pass the interim orde of injunction
It was no doubt true that the 12th episode was to be telecast on 14th April 1988 and the 13th episode was to be telecast on 21st April 1988
If the petitioners in the writ petition had felt as they had alleged in the course of the petition that all the episodes in the serial were offensive they could have approached the High Court as early as possible within the first two or three weeks after the commencement of the exhibition of the serial
But they waited till the exhibition of the 11th episode of the serial was over and filed the petition only in the second week of April 1988
They had not produced any material apart from their own statements to show that the exhibition of the serial was prima facie prejudicial to the community
The High Court overlooked that the issue of an order of interim injunction in this case would infringe a fundamental right of the producer of the serial
In the absence of any prima facie evidence of grave prejudice that was likely to be caused to the public generally by the exhibition of the serial it was not just and proper to issue an order of temporary injunction
We are not satisfied that the exhibition of the serial in question was likely to endanger public morality
In the circumstances of the case the balance of convenience lay in favour of 492 the rejection of the prayer for interim injunction
What we have stated here is sufficient to dispose of this appeal
The other questions of law which may arise in a case of this nature will have to be dealt with in an appropriate case
We express no opinion on those questions in this case
We are however of the opinion that the High Court was in error in the present case in issuing the interim order of injunction against which this appeal is filed
We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the interim order of injunction passed by the High Court on the 13th of April 1988
There is however no order as to costs
GN Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was driving a jeep which met with an accident and one of the occupants died and another sustained grievous injuries
According to the Police the accident was attributable to rash and negligent driving of the appellant
He was charge sheeted under section 279 IPC read with sections 304 A338 IPC and a report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner on 22nd November 1976
The Magistrate held that cognizance was taken on 22nd November 1976 itself
The appellant moved the High Court under section 482 Cr
PC read with article 227 of the Constitution
The High Court held that the investigations started on 22nd November 1976 on the registration of the case and were completed on 8th September 1977 and cognizance was taken on 31st March 1986 when the Deputy Commissioner passed an order for issuing summons to the appellant
The High Court quashed the charges against the appellant and remitted the case to the Magistrate for considering it afresh
This appeal by special leave is against the High Court Judgment
It was contended before this Court that since cognizance was taken in 1986 it was barred by section 468 Cr
On behalf of the Respondent it was contended that the provisions of Cr
PC do not apply to the State of Arunachal Pradesh
478 Allowing the appeal this Court  HELD 11 Section 473 Cr
PC provides that any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice
Taking cognizance means judicial application of mind of the Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the complaint with a view to taking further action
484E H Tula Ram and others vs Kishore Singh   referred to
12 As regards the contention that Cr
PC is not applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh the High Court rightly held that section 32 of the Assam Frontier Administration of Justice Regulations 1945 on which reliance was placed should be guided by the spirit of the Code and it will be proper to throw out a complaint if there was inordinate or undue delay which was not explained
483D E State of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh 1981 3 SCR 349 referred to
13 Statutes of limitation have legislative policy behind them
They shut out belated and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary harassment
They also save the accused from the risk of having to face trial at a time when his evidence might have been lost because of the delay on the part of the prosecution
A bar has been prescribed under section 468 Cr
PC and there is no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to it in the facts and circumstances of this case
484A C Surinder Mohan Vikal vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra   relied on
Kathamuthu vs Balammal  Ghansham Dass vs Sham Sunder Lal and Vijay Kumar Agarwalla vs State of Assam  referred to
In the instant case the broad facts that emerge are that the alleged offence took place in November 1976 and until the High Court s order in August 1987 no investigation had taken place
The offence is of rash and negligent driving
It is as such neither a grave and heinous offence nor an offence against the community as such 479 though all criminal offences are crimes against society
It is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to decide whether cognizance was properly taken whether the extension of period of limitation under section 473 must precede taking of the cognizance of the offence and whether cognizance in this case was taken on 8th September 1977 as held by the learned Magistrate or on 31st March 1986 as held by the High Court
Having regard to the nature of offence there is enormous delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution by the respondent 912 years for a trial for rash and negligent driving is too long a time
Quick justice is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution
Keeping a person in suspended animation for 912 years without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law
484D G C This Court set aside the order of the High Court and quashed the proceedings against the appellant 485A B