VIDYA DHAR & ORS. versus MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 03-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 510 
VIDYA DHAR & ORS. 
v. 
MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. LTD. 
(Special Leave Petition (C} No. 9967 of 2013} 
MAY 3, 2013 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, ANIL R. DAVE AND 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial - Free and fair trial - Balancing of interests 
C - Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers Recruitment Scam -
Conviction of petitioners - Pending appeal - Proposal of 
respondent to broadcast I telecast an episode on television 
on "JBT Teachers Scam"- Suit for permanent injunction by 
Petitioners to restrain respondent from such broadcast/ 
D telecast - Injunction order passed by Single Judge of High 
Court -- Set aside by Division Bench in appeal - SLPs - Plea 
of petitioners that they were entitled to a fair trial and the 
proposed telecast would have prejudicial impact on their 
rights, and further, though the petitioners might stand 
E convicted, an appeal is a continuation of the trial and even 
at the appellate stage, there was every possibility of bias 
against them - Held: Once the trial was completed and the 
Petitioners convicted and, thereafter, arrested, there was no 
further possibility of any bias against them at the time of 
F hearing of the e1ppeal - No interference called for with the 
order of the Division Bench of the High Court - However, in 
order to safeguard the interests of the Petitioners, certain 
restrictions imposed at the time of the screening of the 
episode concerned - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
G s. 13(2) - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 120B - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.389. 
In a matter relating to the Junior Basic Trained (JBT) 
Teachers Recruitment scam, the three petitioners were 
convicted by the trial court under Section 120B IPC read 
H 
510 
VIDYA DHAR & ORS. v. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. 511 
LTD. 
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
A 
1988 and detained in judicial custody. The Petitioners 
filed appeal before the High Court, and alongwith the 
same also filed applications under Section 389 CrPC, 
seeking suspension of conviction, sentence as well as 
for grant of interim bail. 
B 
Meanwhile, during pendency of the appeal, the 
Petitioners came to learn that the Respondent was 
proposing to broadcast an episode of the TV program 
"CRIME PATROL DASTAK", in which a dramatized 
version of "JBT Teachers Scam" was to be presented. 
C 
The Petitioners filed suit before the High Court for 
permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from 
broadcasting/telecasting the above-mentioned television 
program on any media channel, including the Internet. 
The Single Judge restrained the Respondent from 
D 
broadcasting/ telecasting the said program till the 
application for suspension of sentence under Section 
389 of Cr.P.C. was decided. On appeal, the Division 
Bench set aside the order of injunction passed by the 
Single Judge. 
E 
In the instant SLP, the order passed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court was challenged on the ground 
that the said proposed telecast of the episode would have 
prejudicial impact on rights of the petitioners, who were 
F 
entitled to a fair trial and further, though the petitioners 
might stand convicted, an appeal from the judgment of 
conviction is a continuation of the trial and even at 
appellate stage, there was every possibility of bias 
against the petitioners, which would be against the 
G 
concept of a free and fair trial. 
Dismissing the SLP, the Court 
HELD:1. Once the trial has been completed and the 
Petitioners have been convicted and, thereafter, arrested, 
H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A there is no further possibility of any bias against them at 
the time of hearing of the appeal. The contents of the trial 
and the ultimate judgment of conviction and sentence is 
now in the public domain and is available for anyone to 
see. [Para 16] [517-B-C] 
B 
2. No interference is called for with the order of the 
Division Bench of the High Court, setting aside the order 
of the Single Judge. However, in order to safeguard the 
interests of the Petitioners, certain restrictions can be 
imposed at the time of the screening of the said Episodes. 
C Accc;>rdingly, the Producers, Directors and Distributors 
and all those connected with the screening of the 
aforesaid Episodes on television, shall ensure that there 
is no direct similarity of the characters in the Serial with 
the Petitioners, who have been convicted in connection 
D with the JBT Teachers Recruitment and had been 
sente.nce

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