* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3684 OF 2008 Mr.Mukesh Bhatt .... Applicant V/s. Senior Police Inspector, Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Solapur & Ors. .... Respondents ========== Mr.Santosh Punder, Advocate for applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 20TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings being S.T.C.No.720 of 1997 instituted by Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Solapur under Section 7(1) (c) of The Cinematograph Act, 1952 against the applicant in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 7th Court, Solapur. The application is opposed by the respondent. 3. The applicant is a producer of a Hindi film by name `FAREB'. When this film went before the Censor Board for * 2 * certification for exhibition, the board suggested nine cuts therein. The Certificate came to be issued on making the necessary changes in the film. The police found that the film was being exhibited in Bhagwati Chitra Mandir of original accused no.3 at Solapur without five of the cuts. Therefore, the print was seized by the police. It was compared with the master print maintained by the board and confirmed that the film was being exhibited without five of the cuts. Thereafter, the police filed the above mentioned complaint against the applicant (accused no.1) producer of the film, (accused no.2)- distributor of the film and (accused no.3) the Exhibitor of the film. 4. The applicant had filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the case. By the order dated 30th August, 2008 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur rejected the application. He has observed that on a prima-facie view the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to frame charge against the applicant. This order is not challenged by the applicant, thereby he has accepted the same. 5. Mr.Punder,learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant being a producer of the film has nothing to do with exhibition of the film. Therefore, he is not covered by * 3 * the provision of Section 7(1)(c). The said provision is a penal provision which takes into its ambit, both, the person who exhibits a film other than the film certified by the board in any place, as well as, the person who permits such exhibition. Therefore, on a prima-facie view of the matter it cannot be said that only a Exhibitor would be liable. 6. Mr.Dedhia, the learned APP points out that at the time of certification, the producer places only one copy before the Censor Board for certification. The prosecution alleges that in the instant case, the producer had made the required changes only in one copy which was produced before the board for its perusal, whereas, he had other copies of the film in which the necessary cut had not been carried out. In other words, it is alleged that the copies given to the distributor and exhibitors are not as per certification. In this way, the application has permitted exhibition of such film. 7. Mr.Punder draws attention of the court to the report dated 17th September, 1996 of the Regional Office of the Censor Board that on verification of the copy of the film it was noticed that the portions which had been cut at the recommendation of the Censor Board, were reintroduced into the film by joining the pieces of the film. He further submits that this would indicate that after the film left the hands of * 4 * the producer, somebody has obtained the objectionable portion either from the laboratory or from any other source and hence the applicant cannot be held responsible for the same. There are statements recorded of the Manager and the Operator from the concerned theatre. They have stated that they were neither informed about the cuts which the applicant is duty bound to notify under Section 6A of the Cinematograph Act and they have exhibited the film as was received by them. 8. Considering the provisions of Section 7(1)(a), it will not be appropriate to quash the proceedings at the initial stage, when prima-facie there is scope for suspicion about removal of the objectionable portion from the film in compliance of directions of the Censor Board. Hence, the application is rejected. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.]