B K CHANEL NETWORK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.

(2.) Draft amendment is allowed. The same is ordered to be carried out during the course of the day.

(3.) On the issue of interim relief, Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders in origin dated 25.06.2021 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deesa is without the authority of law and by resorting to combined powers under the provisions of Cinematography Act, 1952 and Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the order of conviction came to be passed for breach of the said provisions. By referring to Sections 14 and 15 of the Cinematography Act, 1952, a contention is raised that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order. In addition to it, Mr.Popat, learned advocate has also drawn the attention of the relevant provisions from the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and has submitted that Section 18 is a charging Section whereby cognizance of offence can be only upon complaint in writing made by the authorized officer otherwise no cognizance can be taken by the Court. Section 16 is dealing with the punishment for contravention of provisions of this Act and as such, in any case, looking to the scheme of both the Acts, according to Mr.Popat, learned advocate, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not competent to exercise the powers and as such, the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate reflecting on page 91 of the petition compilation is without jurisdiction.