Obscene films; no declaration of promise to abide by the programming code.

In the present case, even as per the petitioners, they have certification from the Censor Board only in respect of to films namely "Stripped to Kill and Dance of the Damned". The learned Counsel for the respondent has, however, pointed out that no such certificates in respect of even those two movies are produced by the petitioners. He also submitted that the necessary averments were made in the complaint that these movies did not have clearance from the Censor Board and even in the movies no particulars of any such certificate were depicted. In respect of other two movies, the petitioners concede that there is no such certification. In the absence of certification from the Censor Board under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, the petitioners cannot claim that provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code or that of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, would not apply at all. In respect of those movies, where there is no such certification, matter can be examined as to whether such movies are indecent and obscene and violate the provisions of the aforesaid two Acts and it is not open for the person responsible for making or screening those movies to claim immunity from such a prosecution. Of course, it would be judged on its merits as to whether movie in question is obscene or indecent representation of women.

13. To sum up, the complaint cannot be quashed on the basis of the aforesaid submissions. Whether the films in question which were allegedly shown by the petitioners on their network are obscene and indecent and, therefore punishable under the provisions of Section 292 of the IPC or Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, is a matter of trial. I have already reproduced above the operative portion of the impugned order as per which, the learned trial court after watching those movies have prima facie found the same to be lacking in decency and many objectionable scenes therein which amount to obscenity. As pointed out above, it was not argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners before me that this prima facie view was not correct inasmuch as that is a matter of trial and thus not commented upon in judgment either. Likewise, who were responsible for screening is also a matter of evidence.

Mr. R. Basu v. N.C.T. of Delhi (4/6/2007)The Delhi High Court2007 Cri LJ 4254 -

Print Page