This reference arises out of a complaint filed by the Sub-- Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, on the 28th of November 1963, for offences under sections 292/ 109, P. P. C. And 6 of Cinemato--graph Act, 1918. The counsel for the accused in the case made applications under section 253(2), Cr. P. C., and prayed for a discharge order. The learned City and A. D. M. Who dealt with these applications rejected them against which revision applications were brought before the Sessions Court which were disposed of on the 28th of October 1964. The learned Addi--tional Sessions Judge disposed of these applications by a reference to this Court for quashment of the proceedings pending against the accused-respondents.
2. The to short points on which the fate of this reference depends are:-
(1) Whether the facts mentioned in the complaint constitute an offence both under section 292, P. P.
C., and section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, or whether the offence falls only under Cinematograph Act, 1918.
(2) Whether section 26 of the General Clauses Act will permit prosecution under both the enactments.
3. These to points can be joined together and disposed of on consideration whether by any means the offence would be covered by section 292, P. P. C. I have considered the argu--ments advanced by the counsel for the parties in this case. The admitted position on the record is that an application was made under section 4 of the Censorship of Films Act, 1963, for getting a certificate that the film "Universe By Night" is fit for exhibition. The West Pakistan Board of Censors after examining the film excised certain portions of it considering them to be obscene and unfit for exhibition and certified the rest of the film for exhibition. This film was consequently put up for exhibition in to cinema houses, Goddeon and Nairang. The District Magistrate probably, on coming to know that the excised portions of the film had been put up for exhibition despite a direction to the contrary from the Board of Censors, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrates to inspect the picture and make a report. The Sub-Divisional Magistrates, one of whom was the complainant, examined the film and found that some obscene scenes were being exhibited. The S. D. M.
Consequently without resorting to the procedure provided for in the Censorship of Films Act, 1963, filed a complaint on the 28th of November 1963, for offences both under the Penal Code and the Cinematograph Act of 1918.
4. The procedure prescribed in the Censorship of Films Act 1963, provides for exhibition of a film by getting a certificate from the Board of Censors. Any film exhibited without such a certificate will result in contravention of the provisions of this Act and will make the person so doing liable for punishment under section 8 of this Act. It is also provided in this Act that in the event of a certificate having been obtained for the exhibition of a film, the District Magistrate or any other autho--rity if he comes to know that certain portions of the film are unworthy of being exhibited is authorised under section 5(21 of this Act to exercise his emergent powers and stop the exhibition of the film forthwith and make a report to the A Central Government for cancellation of the certificate. The Central Government on the report of the District Magistrate can either modify the original order and excise certain portions from the film and permit the exhibition of the rest of the film or cancel the previous certificate and decertify the film from exhibition. All this has not been done but as I have said resort was had to filing of a complaint in Court. My own reading of section 292, P. P. C.
And section 6 of the Cinematograph Act makes me understand that section 292, P. P. C. Has no application whatever to the exhibition of films. If section 292 had' been applicable the necessity of enacting a special law under the name of Censorship of Films Act would not have arisen. In my opinion the enactment of Censorship of Films Act also became necessary because otherwise any- individual aggrieved with the proprietor of a cinema house would drag him in a Court of law and have him put to a lot of expenses. It is with a view to avoid all kinds of frivolous prosecutions that this special Act: has been enacted and it provides for almost an exception to section 292, P. P. C. In the event of a film being certified for exhibition. In this particular case the film in question was certified for exhibition. The controversy in the matter relates only to whether certain portions that were excised from the film were fraudulently put for exhibition in the cinema houses. Even if it be assumed that the excised portions of the film were put for exhibition and were. Being exhibited without a certificate under section 4 of the Censorship of Films Act, 1963, it would make the person responsible for exhibition of such a film to prosecution under section 8 of this Act. There can be no question of his prosecution under section 292 of the Penal Code. Under these circumstances, the applicability of section 26 of the General Clauses Act would not be attracted. All that section 26 of the General Clauses Act says is that there can be no bar to the prosecution of an individual if the offence alleged to have been committed falls within the definition of to different enactments. It merely creates a bar on the punishment that can be imposed upon that person and says that the offender shall be punished only under one enactment. In view of my finding that the offence in this case by no means falls under section 292, P. P. C. And falls only under section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, there can, be no question of the prosecution of the respondents by invoking section 26 of the General Clauses Act.
5. So far as the prosecution of the respondents under the Cinematograph Act is concerned, it is admitted position that n prosecution can be launched without a sanction from the authority mentioned .In the Act for such a complaint to be filed. It is also admitted that no such sanction has been obtained. Under these circumstances, the very foundation of the case gets knocked out as a complaint filed without such a sanction is a complaint filed before a Court having no jurisdiction.
Under these circumstances, I accept the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge and quash the proceedings pending against the respondents.