X M DAKSHINMURTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitions praying that in the circumstances stated there in the High Court will be pleased to call for the records in STC. Nos. 557 to 581/84 respectively from the file of the court of the JudI. II Class Magistrate, Kancheepuram, and quash the said proceedings. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. J.J. Rajkumar Roberts Advocate for the petitioners in each of the petitions and if Mr. T. Muniratana Naidu advocate for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent in each of the petitions herein, the court made the following order: All these applications are filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. Nos. 557 to 581 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kancheepuram.

(2.) The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kancheepuram (North) launched criminal prosecution by filing 25 complaints against the petitioners (accused 1 to 5) and another by name Gopal (accused No. 6) for violation of the provisions of Rules 26 and 53 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Rules, for non-furnishing of the returns within the respective period. The first petitioner is the Proprietor of the theatre Raja Talkies, Wallajabad, Chengalpattu District. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the sons of the first petitioner. The sixth petitioner is a stranger. All the petitioners obtained licence for running of the cinema theatre by exhibiting films and the licence so taken by them expired on 25 6.1983. Thereafter also the theatre was exhibiting films even without a licence. According to the petitioners, one Kumaresan illegally entered into the theatre breaking open the locks and started exhibiting films without the connivance or the consent of the petitioners. On this aspect, the petitioners would say that they in fact had given a complaint to the Wallajabad Police Station and the police had not taken any action at all. They also filed a writ petition in W.P. NO. 1763 of 1984 on the file of this Court to forbear the Commercial Tax Authorities from taking any action against them including the collection of tax. It is represented that no stay had been given in the writ proceedings. It appears that a direction had been given to the Wallajabad Police to investigate the complaint given by the petitioners and submit a report before 15.12.1984. But no report had been filed all directed. All the complaints in all the S.T.CS. excepting S.T.C. Nos. 580 and 581 of 1984 had been filed into Court after a delay of 6 months and below. The Magistrate not taking cognizance of the complaints in fact returned them stating that they had been filed after delay. All the above said complaints had been re-presented before the Court by the Officer of the Department by making an endorsement as follows: The delay is due to pressure of work in final assessment and collection work. The charge sheets filed were misplaced by the concerned clerk and hence the delay in filing the same before the Honble Court. I request that as the delay was due to administrative reasons the same may be condoned and the charge sheets may be taken on file of this Honble Court and disposed of according to law. The Magistrate on his part simply took cognizance of all these cases by making an endorsement as follows: Delay condoned u/s. 473 Cr. P.C. and C.S. Taken on file. On receipt of summons, the petitioners have come forward with the present petitions seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated, against them,

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that since the licence in their favour expired on 25.6.1983, they are not at all liable for filing any returns thereafter for the exhibition of films in the theatre in view of the fact that one Kumarsan had illegally entered into the theatre and had been exhibiting films for which he alone was responsible for the submission of returns. This argument of the learned counsel for, the petitioner, if examined with some care and caution, the ugliness taking shelter thereunder will emerge to the surface pointing out the reality of the situation. In order to appreciate this aspect of the matter, it is better to refer to sections 3 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1955. Section 3 of the Act is couched in the following terms: Cinematograph exhibitions to be licenced: Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under this Act, or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. Section 8 of the Act runs as follows: Penalties: If the owner of person in charge of a cinematograph uses the same or allows it to be used, or if the owner or occupier of any place permits that place to be used, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, or of the conditions and restrictions upon or subject to which any licence has been granted under this Act, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees and, the case of a continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues. From a cursory persual of the aforesaid two sections, it will be crystal clear that exhibition of films in a place is permissible only if such place is licensed by the authorities concerned to exhibit films. Further, if the owner or a person in charge of a cinematograph uses the same or allows it to be used or if the owner or occupier of anyplace permits that place to be used in contravention of the provisions of this Act, then it goes without saying that such person is liable to be prosecuted for refraction or violation of the provisions of the Act Admittedly, the first petitioner is the owner of Raja Talkies and petitioners 2 to 5 are his sons and the sixth petitioner, though appearing to be a stranger, is the person who joined with petitioners 1 to 5 in taking out a licence for exhibiting films in the theatre which unfortunately expired on 25.6.1983. The fact remains that even subsequent to the expiry of the licence, films were being exhibited in the theatre. It also appears that the petitioners had complained to the police at Wallajabad as to the illegal enter of one Kumaresan into the theatre who bad been exhibiting films even though there was no licence. On this premise, the petitioners contend that what all possible they could do in the circumstances had in fact been done and therefore, they may not be muleted with liability for exhibition of films in the theatre by the trespasser Kumaresan. The fact whether Kumaresan is a trespasser or is a person authorised by the petitioners behind the back of the authorities to run the cinema theatre in view of the fact that they were unable to run the theatre on account Of arrears of tax due to the department, is a matter to be decided on the evidence to be adduced before the trial Court. The mere fact of preferring of a complaint by itself will not throw any light as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations stated in the complaint. It is well nigh possible that the preferring of a complaint before the police is a stage-managed show to escape from the clutches of law. At this stage, it is not feasible to decide this aspect of the matter. As such, there is no merit andT substance in the contention of the petitioners in this regard.