SHASHI RANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu has taken cognizance of offence under Section 8(1) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952(No. XXX of 1952)(here in after referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners continued to run the cinema house despite the expiry of the licence granted to them. The petitioners have challenged this order by this application under Section 482 Cr. PC on the ground that no offence is made out against them at all and, therefore, the cognizance could not have been taken.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a few facts may be mentioned. Petitioner Smt. Shashi Rani Gupta is the Manager of the Cinema and petitioner No. 2 Alok is her son. The original licence granted to the cinema house called 'Alok Chitra Mandir' was renewed up to March 31, 1984. No application for its renewal was made within the prescribed time and despite the expiry of the licence, the cinema continued. It appears that some notice was issued to the petitioner not to run the cinema without renewal of the licence and, thereupon on March 28, 1985, the petitioner No. 1 applied for the renewal of the licence. This renewal was refused by the learned Collector, the authority under Section 5 of the Act, by his order dated July 2, 1985. The ground for refusal was that a clearance certificate had not been produced from the authority under the Entertainment, Tax Act. After that, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu for offences under Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act. In between, it appears that petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 5(3) of the Act against order of learned Collector dated July 2, 1985. That appeal was accepted by the State Government by its order dated July 20, 1985 and a direction was issued to the learned Collector that since a copy of the no due certificate had already been filed before the Government, the Collector may look into it and if he is satisfied on that score, he may pass appropriate orders. It further transpires that in pursuance of that order, the Collector, Churu, by his order dated September 3, 1985, renewed the licence. The renewal order reads as under: Renewed upto 31st March, 1987 subject to condition that it will have no adverse affect on the FIR already lodged on 4 -7 -1985.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when once the licence has been renewed by the learned Collector under Rule 7 after accepting the penalty or additional fee, the renewal must relate back to the date of the expiry of the earlier licence and in that event, it cannot be said that the petitioner had run the cinema house without a licence. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the renewal of the licence on September 3, 1985 does not have any retrospective effect and, therefore, the offence committed by the petitioner from April 1, 1985 up to September 2, 1985 cannot be wiped out and, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under Section 8(1) of the Act.