R. M. SESHADRI versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE, AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 01-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, VIVIAN BOSE, GHULAM HASAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

19:;4 
In re Hira Lal 
Dixit. 
Das .7. 
19:;4 
October I. 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment 
even by way of imprisonment, in cases where a mere 
fine may not be adequate. 
After anxious consideration 
we have come to the 
conclusion that in all the circumstances of this case it 
is a fit case where 
the power of the Court should be 
exercised and that it is necessary to impose the punish-
ment of imprisonment. 
People must 
know that they 
cannot with impunity hinder or obstruct or attempt to 
hinder or. obstruct the due course of administration of 
justice.' We, therefore, find respondent, Hira Lal Dixit, 
guilty of contempt 
of 
Court, make the Rule absolute 
as 
against him and direct that he be arrested and 
committed 
to civil 
prison 
to 
undergo 
simple 
imprisonment for a fortnight. 
He must also pay the 
costs, if any, incurred by the Union of India. 
Order accordingly. 
R. M. SESHADRI 
ti. 
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE, 
AND ANOTHER. 
[MEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, 
VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASSAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g) -Cinematograph Act (II of 
1918), s, 8-0wner of cinema theatre-Granted license-Conditions 
-Restrictions-Whether reasonable. 
The appellant, the owner of a permanent cinema theatre in the 
Tanjore District, was granted a license by the District Magistrate, 
Tanjore, subject to certain conditions imposed by him in pursuance 
of 2 notifications (G. 0. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, 
and G. 0. Mis. 3422 dated 15th September, 1948) issued by the 
State of Madras purporting to act iQ exercise of powers conferred 
by s. 8 of the Cinematograph Act (II of 1918). 
The impugned conditions inter alia were as follows :-
"4( a) The licensee shall exhibit 
at each 
performance one or 
more approved films of such length and for such length of time, as 
the Provincial 
Government or the Central Government may, by 
general or special order, direct. 
, . 
• 
• 
• 
-
-
$.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
687 
Special 
condition 
3.-The licensee should 
exhibit at 
the 
· commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of 
ope or more approved films." 
Held, that condition No. 4(a) and special condition 
No. 
3, 
imposed 
unreasonable 
restrictions on the right of the licensee to 
carry on his business 
and 
were void 
as they infringed 
the 
fundamental right of the appellant guaranteed to him under 
Art. 
19( 1) (g) of the Constitution. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 192 of 1952. 
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of 
India from the 
Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 
1951, of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous 
Petition No. 5744 of 1951. 
Appellant in person. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General 
for 
India (R. 
Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the 
respondent. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (P. A. 
Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the Intervener 
(Union of India). 
1954. October 1. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GHULAM HASAN J.-The appellant is the owner of 
a permanent cinema theatre called Sri 
Brahannayaki 
in Tiruthuraipundi, Tanjore District, and held a licence 
from the 
District 
Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of the 
same with effect from 
September 5, 1950, to September 
4, 1951. 
The licence is granted for one year at a time 
and is renewable from year to yrar. He objected to 
certain conditions in the licence imposed by the District 
Magistrate, 
Tanjore, in pursuance 
of 2 notifications 
(G. 0. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and 
G. 0. Mis. 3422, dated 15th September, 1948) issued by 
the 
State of 
Madras 
purporting to act in exercise of 
powers conferred by section 8 of the Cinematograph 
Act of 1918. 
The impugned 
conditions may conveni-
ently be set out here : 
"4(a) 
The 
licensee 
shall 
exhibit 
at 
each 
performance one or more approved films of such length 
and 
for such length 
of 
time, 
as 
the 
Provincial 
· 6-88 S. C. India/59 
1954 
R. M. S-.hadri 
v. 
District 
Magistrate, 
Tanjore. 
1954 
R. M. Stjhadri 
v. 
District 
Magis1fate, 
Taruore. 
Ghulam Ha.san ]. 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
Gov~rnment or 
the 
Central 
Government 
may, by 
general or special order. direct. 
(b) The licensee shall comply with such directions 
as 
the Provincial 
Government 
may by general or 
special order give as to the manner in which approved 
films 
shall be exhibited i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.