RAJKAPOOR S/O PRITHVIRAJ KAPOOR versus LAXMAN S/O KISHANLAL GAVAI

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 14-12-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
512 
RAJKAPOOR S/O PRITHVIRAJ KAPOOR 
v. 
LAXMAN S/0 KISHANLAL GAVAI 
December 14, 1979 
(V. R. KRISHNA }YER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
• 
Ind;a11 Penal Code I 860 (45 of 1860), Ss. 79 and 292 Cinematograph 
l, 
Act 1952-S. 5A(lA)-Cinen1a film granted censor certificate for public e:chi' .. 
bitiou-Complaint for posecution of producer that film is obscene, corrupts 
· -~ ~ 
public n1orals-Such prosecution whether sustainable. 
c 
Word~ and phrases-'Justified'-Meaning of-Indian Penal Code 1860, S. 
79. 
Section 79 I.P.C. provides that nothing is an offence which is done by any 
person who is justified by law in doing it, or, who by reason of a mistake of 
fact in good faith, believes himself to be· justified by law, in doing it. 
The respondent-complainant alleged that the film Satyam Shivam Sundaram 
D 
was by 
il~ fa,~cinating title misleadingly foul and beguiled the guidele~~ into 
degeneracy and that obscenity, indecency and vice were writ large on the picture, 
constituting an offence under s. 292 I.P.C. The Magistrate after 
t:Xal11.lntng 
some 'vitnesses. took cognizance of the offence and issued notice to the appel-
lant-producer of the film. 
Thereupon the appellant moved the l:ligh 
Court 
under section 482 Cr. P.C. on the score that the criminal proceeding was an 
abuse of the judicial process and that no prosecution could be legally sustained 
E 
as the film had been duly certified for public show by the Central Board of Film 
Censors. The High Court, however dismissed the petition. 
Jn the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
once a certificate· sanctioning public exhibition of a film had been granted by the 
competent authority under the Cinematograph Act, 19 52, there was a justifica-
tion for its display thereafter, and by virtue of the antidotal provisions in section 
F 
79 J.P.C., the public exhibition, circulation or distribution of the film, even if 
it be obscene, lascivious or tending to deprave or corrupt public morals, could 
not be an offence, s. 292 I.P.C. notwithstanding. 
G 
II 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. 
The prosecution is unsustainable because section 79 l.P.C. is 
exculpatory when read with section 5·A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and 
the certificate issued thereunder, and is therefore quashed. [517 G] 
2. It j5 an antinomy to say that under section 5A(1A) of the Act, the Board 
certifies a film as suitable for public exhibition and for section 292 T.P.C. to 
punish such exhibition. unless the ground covered by the two laws be different. 
[516 HJ 
3. The Penal Code is general, the Cinematograph Act is special. The scheme 
of the latter is deliberately drawn up to meet the explosively expanding cinema 
menace if it were not strictly policed. The cinema is a great instrument for 
public good if geared to social ends and can be a public curse if directed to 
' 
' 
I 
• 
• .. 
RAJKAPOOR v. LAXMAN (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
513 
anti-social objectives. So the Act sets up a Board of Censors of high calibre 
A 
and expertise, provides hearings, appeals and ultimate judicial review, the pre-
.ceni;orship and conditional exhibitions and other policing strategies to protect 
state and society. [516D; G-HJ 
4. Neither the Penal Code nor the Cinematograph Ac.t can go beyond the 
n:strictions sanctioned tiy Part III of the Constitut"ion and cncc the special law 
polices the area it is pro tanto out of bounds for the general law. Section 79 
I.P.C. resolves the apparent contlict between secti0n 292 I.P.C. and part JI of 
th~ Act relating to certification of tilms. 
If the Board blunders, the Act pro-
vides remedies. [517 B-C) 
5. Jurisprudentially viewed, an act may be an offence, definitionally speak~ 
ing; but a forbidden act may not spell inevitable guilt if the law itself declares 
that in certain special circumstances, it is 11ot to be regarded as 
an offence. 
The chapter on General Exceptions oper01tes in 
this 
province. Section 
79 
makes an offence, a non-offence, only when the offending act is actually justified 
by law or is bona fide believed by mistake of fact to be so justified. [517 E] 
6. Once the Board of Censors, acting within their jurisdiction and on an 
a-ppJication made and pursued in good faith, sanctions t_he public exhibition of 
B 
c 
a film, the producer and connected agencies enter the statutory harbour and are 
protected because s. 79 exonerates them in view of the bona fide belief that 'the 
D 
-eertificate is justificatory. [517 F]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.