IN RE: M.R. RADHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER M.R. Radha has been convicted under Section 7(1) of the Madras Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to simple imprisonment for three weeks by the learned Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 19th July, 1959, between 7 and 10 p.m. at Theagaraja College, Open Air Theatre, Washermanpet, Madras, the petitioner staged the drama Kathal Bali, which is substantially the same as the drama Thooku Medai, the performance of which has been prohibited by the Government in G.O. No. 1193, dated 25th April, 1959. But before staging the drama, the script of the drama was submitted to the Commissioner of Police and a licence was obtained to stage the drama on the basis of the script so furnished. The learned advocate for the petitioner urged that the finding of the Second Presidency Magistrate that both the performances Thooku Medai and Kathal Bali "are substantially similar" is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Madras Dramatic Performance Act, 1954, and that in the absence of the script of Kathal Bali submitted by him in view of his having obtained a licence from the Commissioner of Police to stage the drama, the prosecution against him could not be sustained.

(3.) THE same objection holds good even as regards the evidence given by P.W. 4 S.J. Inniah, Sub -Inspector of Police, Intelligence Section, Madras City. He did not also attend the drama Kathal Bali enacted by the petitioner. He merely perused the transcript Exhibit P -5 made by P.W. 2 Joseph Jegaraj, Shorthand Sub -Inspector attached to Shorthand Bureau, Vellore, who attended the drama Kathal Bali and from his memory of what he had read in the transcript submitted to the Commissioner of Police he came to the conclusion that the objectionable passages were not in the original script. He admitted in cross -examination that he told the Police that he could not state anything about the objectionable matter in Kathal Bali without referring to the original script which he had perused earlier, when he scrutinised the transcript Exhibit P -5 of the play Kathal Bali enacted by the petitioner.