Saturday, 13 February 2016

Whether Actor is liable for failure to display Statutory warning on Alcohol Consumption in Film?

From such an aspect, this Court is of the view that

the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or

not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term

`whoever causes to exhibit any cinema' under Section 55 I

(2) of the Abkari Act.     Matters being so, the prosecution

proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014

of   the     Judicial   First Class    Magistrate's Court-III,

Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report,


are liable to be quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                     PRESENT:

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

            WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

                                           Crl.MC.No. 7342 of 2015 

            PRITHVIRAJ
            S/O. SUKUMARAN, CHANDRAKAMAL, 
Vs

            STATE OF KERALA
            





     A film actor named Pridhviraj, who had occasion to act

in the lead role in a film titled `Seventh Day', has presently

the ordeal to face the trial in C.C.No.1869 of 2014 before

the    Judicial    First    Class     Magistrate's   Court-III,

Thiruvananthapuram, for an offence punishable under

Section 55 I (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

     2. The prosecution case is that the statutory warning

that "CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IS INJURIOUS TO

HEALTH", had to be exhibited in a particular scene in the

film and that such a statuary warning exhibited in the film

was not really legible and also that it did not conform to the


size prescribed under Section 55 I (1) of the Abkari Act.

      3. As per Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act, `whoever

exhibits or causes to exhibit any cinema having a scene in

contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) in any

theatre shall be punishable for such an offence'. Here the

question to be considered is as to who are the persons, who

can be clothed with criminal liability under Section 55 I (1)

and (2) of the Abkari Act.        When sub-section (2) says,

`whoever exhibits or causes to exhibit', necessarily it means

that the owner of the theatre, who exhibits such a film, can

be an accused in such a case. The next question to be

considered is as to who are the persons, who can be

brought within the purview of `whoever causes to exhibit any

cinema ' under Section 55 I (2) of the Abkari Act.

        4. In fact, it is a vague term. If an interpretation to

the effect that the actor in the film can also be considered as

a person, who causes to exhibit the cinema is taken, then

not only the actor in the film; but also all the other persons

behind the production and processing of the film can also be



brought within the purview of that term. Therefore, such an

interpretation is not possible. An interpretation of such a

provision has to be strictly done. It should be meant for

advancing the remedy and suppressing the mischief.         In

such case, it seems that the person, who produces the film

and also the person, who distributes such a film can only be

the persons, who can be brought within the purview of the

term `whoever causes to exhibit any cinema.' Otherwise,

even the light boy, who had participated in the production of

a film has also to be brought within the purview of the said

terms.

      5. From such an aspect, this Court is of the view that

the actor of the film, whether he has done the lead role or

not, cannot be brought within the purview of the term

`whoever causes to exhibit any cinema' under Section 55 I

(2) of the Abkari Act.     Matters being so, the prosecution

proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1869 of 2014

of   the     Judicial   First Class    Magistrate's Court-III,

Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final Report,


are liable to be quashed.

      In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and           the

prosecution        proceedings against       the  petitioner in

C.C.No.1869 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's

Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, based on Annexure-A Final

Report, are hereby quashed.

                                           Sd/-

                                     B. KEMAL PASHA,
                                            JUDGE.


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment