absence protection against prosecution for rash or negligent act resulting in death in statute indicates no such protection was intended
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)
136. If while carrying out the above directive, the authorities concerned turned a blind eye to the
fundamental requirement of the Rules by ignoring the closure of the right side exit and gangway
prescribed as an essential requirement under DCR 1953, they acted in breach of the rules and in the
process endangered the safety of the patrons.
...
137. There is yet another angle from which the matter can be examined. Proviso to Section 5A of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 protects the applicant seeking issue of a certificate, the distributor and the
exhibitor as also any other person to whom the rights in the film may have passed against
punishment under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in the film for
which a certificate has been granted under clauses (a) or (b) of sub-section (1) to Section 5A. It
reads:
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 61
Provided that the applicant for the certificate, any distributor or exhibitor or any
other person to whom the rights in the film have passed shall not be liable for
punishment under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in
the film for which certificate has been granted under clause
(a) or clause (b)
138. The above was added by Act 49 of 1981 with effect from 1st June, 1983. The decision in Raj
Kapoors case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Jethmalani was earlier in point of time and is
distinguishable because the question there related to the effect of a certificate issued under Section
5A vis--vis the prosecution of the producer, director or the holder of certificate for obscenity
punishable under Section 292 of the IPC or any other law for that matter. The addition of proviso to
Section 5A (1) (supra) in any case sets the controversy at rest and grants immunity to the person
exhibiting a film to the public in accordance with the certificate issued by the board. No such
protection against prosecution is, however, available to the holder of a cinema licence against
prosecution for a rash or negligent act resulting in the death of anyone visiting the cinema and
punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. In the absence of any such protection against
prosecution for rash or negligent act resulting in death, unlike the protection that the statute itself
grants against prosecution for obscenity, is a circumstance that strongly suggests that no such
protection was intended to be given to a licence holder against any such prosecution.