The validity of the order dated 5th of August 1975, passed by the learned Magistrate, Gujranwala under rule 11 of West Pakistan Cinemato--graph Rules, 1962, read with section 6 of Cinematograph Act, 1918, has been challenged through this petition. The petitioner has been sentenced to pay .a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and the licence of his cinema known as Capri Cinema, Gujranwala, has been suspended for a period of 30 days.
2. The facts of the case as given in the impugned order are that on 20th of June 1975, at about 7-15 p.m. The City Magistrate, Gujranwala along with the City Inspector of Police, Gujranwala and some other police officials raided the Cinema in question. They entered the Dress/Grand Booking Office of the Cinema and found one Safdar Parvaiz issuing the tickets to the customers which were without counterfoils and were lying in bundles. They also found that the entertainment tax tickets pasted on the tickets being issued were only portions of the tickets removed from the previously sold ones meaning thereby that the petitioner had not purchased entertainment ax tickets and had evaded the payment of entertainment duty.
3. According to the respondent, booking clerk of the First Class en--closure of the Cinema was directed to produce the counterfoils of the sold tickets but he left Cinema premises under the pretext that he would bring the same from the office. The raiding party ultimately recorded the statement of said Safdar Parvaiz who stated that the tickets being sold by him without counterfoils were given to him by the Manager of the Cinema who could mot be contacted being absent.
4. On the reports submitted by the raiding party a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 9th of July 1975, which was duly replied by him.
5. It has been found by the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala that since Condition No. 16 of the Schedule of conditions appended to the rules under the Cinematograph Act has been violated, therefore, the petitioner being guilty thereof has been awarded punishment.
6. In order to appreciate as to whether the impugned order can be ;passed on account of the violation of Condition No. 16, as referred to .,above, the same is hereby reproduced for benefit :-- "16. The licensee shall not admit to any performance any person whose ticket therefore has been purchased otherwise than from an authorised booking clerk at the licensed building-place or from an agent whose name and place of business have been notified in advance to the District Magistrate, and who has been approved by the District Magistrate as a suitable person to be appointed as agent for the sale of tickets. The name and place of business of such agent shall further ensure that cinema tickets are made available to the public in an orderly manner and at the prescribed rates which shall be prominently displayed outside the Booking Office."
It would show that the said condition aims at preventing sale of the tickets gun black market or at higher rates than the prescribed ones. Any person who has purchased his ticket not from an authorised booking clerk or from an agent chose name has not been notified to and approved by the District Magistrate cannot be admitted to any Cinema show. It is further provided in the condition that the Cinema tickets are sold at the prescribed rates which are obligatory to be displayed outside the booking office. The management of a Cinema has been prohibited by this condition to sell a cinema ticket at the rate higher than the prescribed one and admit any customer to a cinema show who has not purchased his ticket from the authorised booking clerk or agent.
7. Rule 11 as referred to above empowers the District Magistrate to revoke or suspend a licence granted by a Licensing Authority for any breach of the rules or the conditions of the licence. None of the rules made under the Cinematograph Act pertains to payment of entertainment duty, as to whether the District Magistrate would be competent to take any action warranted by law against the Cinema management for non-payment of such tax. The conditions of licence under which the same has been issued also do not mention any action to be taken against the management in case of non-payment of entertainment duty. The only condition which has been relied upon by the respondent for passing the impugned order is condition. No. 16. As discussed above it does not pertain to the payment or otherwise of the payment of entertainment duty. The relevant law in this case, West' Pakistan Entertainments Duty Act, 1958, provides method of levy of enter--tainment duty by its provision as contained in section 5 thereof which reads as follows :- "5.-(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, no person shall be admitted on payment to any entertainment where the payment is subject to entertainments duty except-
(i) with a ticket stamped with an impressed, embossed, engraved or adhesive stamp (not before used) issued by the Government for the purposes of revenue and denoting that the proper entertainments duty has been paid; or
(ii) with a ticket sealed or printed in the manner prescribed by rules framed by the Government.
(2) The Government may, by an order in writing, require the proprietor of any entertainment in respect of which the entertainments duty is payable under section 3, or on the application of any such proprietor permit him, on such conditions as the Government may prescribe, to pay the amount of the duty due-
(a) by a consolidated payment ; or
(b) in accordance with returns of the payments for admission to the entertainment and on account of the duty; or
(c) in accordance with the results recorded by any mechanical contrivance that automatically registers the number of persons admitted.
(3) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply to any entertainment in respect of which the duty is payable in accordance with the pro--visions of subsection (2)."
8. Section 6 of the Act lays down that if any person is admitted to any placer of entertainment and the provisions of section 4 or section 5 of the Act as the case may be, are not complied with, or the payment of entertainments duty is otherwise evaded, or in the case of any cinema, the entertainment duty is not paid in accordance with the provisions of section 6-A, the Collector shall, m addition to the recovery of the entertainments duty evaded, underpaid or not paid, impose on the proprietor of the entertainment, a penalty not exceeding a sum of five hundred rupees, or a sum not greater than five times the enter--tainment duty the payment of which was evaded, underpaid or not paid, whichever is greater. The District Magistrate, no doubt, has referred to this provision while deciding the matter but has found that since the penalty provided by the West Pakistan Entertainments Duty Act, 1958, is not much effective, therefore, he being also vested with necessary powers in this behalf can impose greater penalty for the evasion or non-payment of entertainment duty by the Cinema management.
9. I am afraid the finding in this behalf cannot be sustained in la as above discussion would show that he has no jurisdiction whatsoever t pass any such order for evasion or non-payment of entertainment duty by the cinema management. The necessary penalty effective or ineffective has been provided by the relevant law, West Pakistan Entertainments Duty c Act, 1958. The relevant provisions of Cinematograph Act as well as rules framed there under and the conditions of the licence do not permit the District Magistrate to take any action against the cinema management for evasion o non-payment of entertainment duty. His order being without jurisdiction is hereby set aside.
10. The writ petition is accepted with costs.