SANJEV HIREMATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a challenge is made to the order dt. 04.06.2004, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 5/16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act of 1995'), has been taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not the In -charge of the broadcast, but was a technical person. He has been implicated without showing his roll for broadcast of the programme. A reference of definition of "person" under the Act of 1995, has also been given. It is to show that cognizance has been taken against MTV in ignorance of share capital largely with the foreign citizen, thus, does not fall in the definition of "person". It is further stated that the programme has been stopped. In view of the above, the impugned order taking cognizance deserves to be set aside. It is more so when violation of the Programme Code has been alleged, though the complaint does not disclose as to how it has been violated. A reference of the Programme Code, given under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules of 1994'), has been given.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) THE definition quote above includes an individual, who is a citizen of India. Thus, the petitioner in the instant case is covered by the definition of "person". The petition has not been filed on behalf of the MTV, thus, I need not to record or elaborate the discussion in reference to the status of the company.