STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DODDASIDDEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, by the State, the order of acquittal dated 5-6-1979 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1979, acquitting the respondent -accused of having committed the offence punishable under S. 16 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged.

(2.) The respondent was prosecuted in CC No. 1505 of 1977 en the file of the Add1. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandya, for having committed the aforementioned offence on the allegation that on 2-7-1977 he being the proprietor of Jayalakshmi Talkies in Guthal Colony, Mandya City, had exhibited a Kannada film called 'Tab- baliyu Neenade Magane' in his theatre without a valid licence. The Magistrate convicted the respondent-accused for having -committed the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 350. S. 16 of the Act provides for imposition of a fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 and in case of a continuing offence, with a further fine, which may extend to Rs. 100 for each day during which the offence continues.

(3.) The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to the respondent accused and the accused was asked to show cause as to why he should not be convicted for the said offence. He pleaded not guilty. In this connection we consider it necessary to deal with one contention of Sri H. S Kempanna, learned counsel appearing on. behalf of the respondent-ace. used, that the plea is not in accordance with the provisions of S. 251 of Crl.P.C. as what is required by the said provision is that the accused should be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, When superficially examined, this contention appears to have some force. The way the substance of the accusation has been put and the respondent accused has been asked to show cause why he should not be convicted shows that the Magistrate had in his mind the provisions of S. 242 of Crl.P.C. 1898 and not the provisions of S. 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But we are unble to accede to the contention of Sri Kempanna, because the accused has not been misled and prejudiced since he has not pleaded guilty to the offence. In support of the prosecution case P. W. 1 Ananda Rao, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time, P. W. 2 Mani, a clerk in P. E. S College, Mandya, P. W. 3 Mad- iah, a milk vendor, P. W. 4 Kotchappa, a supplier in the canteen of Jayalakshmi Theatre and P. W. 5 Doddalingaiah, an agriculturist, were examined. P. W. 1 has sworn that he visited the theatre on 2-7-1977 and found that the Kannada picture 'Tabbali Neenade Magane' was being screened. He has further sworn that he had questioned the Manager who was present in the said theatre at that time and requested him to produce the licence. The manager produced the licence which disclosed that it had expired on 30-6-1977- It is at Ex. P. 2. The counterfoils of the tickets sold-M.Os. 1 to 4-and Ex. P. 2, the licence were seized under Ex. P. 1. Thereafter P. W.1 filed his complaint-Ex. P. 4-in the form of first information report. P. W. 2 has not supported the prosecution case. He is supposed to be one of the attestors of the panchanama. P. W. 3 has supported the prosecution inasmuch as he has spoken to the seizure of the aforementioned licence and the counterfoils of the tickets. P. W. 4 has sworn that the said picture was exhibited in the afore mentioned theatre and many persons were witnessing the picture. He has further stated that Channabasappa Manager was present and he himself attested the mahazar Ex. P 1. P. W. 5 has sworn that he had visited the theatre on that day and was seeing the picture. When he was called out to act as a panch, he acted as such and had witnessed the seizure of articles as narrated by P. W. 1 and attested the panchanama Ex. P, 1.