having licene is not an excuse

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)
127. Mr. Jethamalani next argued that since the licensing authority had on the basis of the no
objection certificates issued by the concerned authorities granted and from time to time renewed the
Cinema licence, the appellant-Ansal brothers were protected under Section 79 of the IPC for they in
good faith believed themselves to be justified in law in exhibiting films with the seating and other
arrangements sanctioned under the said licence. Reliance in support of that submission was placed
by Mr. Jethmalani, upon the decision of this Court in Raj Kapoor v. Laxman (1980) 2 SCC 175.
128. Mr. Tulsi on the contrary argued that reliance upon Section 79 of the IPC and the decision of
this Court in Raj Kapoors case (supra) misplaced. He urged that immunity from penal action under
the provisions of Section 79 of the IPC was founded on good faith which was totally absent in the
case at hand where the occupiers of the cinema and even those who were instrumental in the grant
and renewal of the licence and no objections were accused and even convicted by the Courts below.
There was, therefore, no question of the appellants taking shelter under the licence, the terms
whereof were in any case breached by them to the misfortune of those who lost their lives in the
incident.