Nirmal Talkies, Adoni vs The District Revenue Officer-Cum-Joint Collector, Kurnool

The petitioner herein, the proprietor of Nirmal Talkies, Adoni challenges the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Kurnool in RC C2 19984/78 dt. 6-10-1978, in and by which he held that the petitioner had violated Conditions 36 and 46 of B-Form licence and, therefore, he was guilty of the said violations and imposed a fine of Rs. 8,000/- under S. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows :

"9. Penalties :- If the owner or 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 ten thousand rupees and, in the case of a continuing offence, with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues."

The contention of Sri E. Ayyappu Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder empowers the Joint Collector to impose the punishment of fine under S. 9 of the Act, and that if there is any contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder or the conditions or restrictions subject to which the licence can be granted under the Act, it is only the competent criminal Court that can impose the penalty on a complaint being filed before the said competent Criminal Court, and the Joint Collector has no power or jurisdiction to impose penalty.

In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, apart from being an authority under the Act empowered to renew the licence, is also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 and thus he comes under "a Magistrate" within the definition of "inspecting authority", and that under the provisions of S. 9 of the Act, the licensing authority is fully competent to take action against the owner or any of the persons in charge of the cinema theatre and Section 9 does not contemplate a trial by the Criminal Court under the provisions of the Criminal P.C., and that the licensing authority has power to frame charges, hold enquiry and if found guilty, to impose the fine.

But, a perusal of the Act and the Rules does not disclose any provision which empowers any of the revenue authorities to impose the penalties prescribed by Section 9 of the Act. In the absence of the Act constituting any authority to impose the penalties mentioned in S. 9, it is only the competent Criminal Court that has jurisdiction to impose the penalty on a proper complaint being filed before it. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that where the holder of licence has been convicted under S. 7 of the Cinematograph Act or S. 9 of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, the licence may be revoked by the licensing authority. A reading of the provisions of S. 10 indicates that before a licence can be revoked by the licensing authority, there should be a conviction for an offence u/s 9 of the Act. The conviction under S. 9 of the Act can be only by a Criminal Court on a proper complaint being filed before the competent Criminal Court.

"Offence" is defined in S. 2(n) of the Criminal P.C. as meaning :

"Any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which complaint is being made under S. 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871."

Therefore, any violation of the provisions of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act which is made punishable under S. 9 falls within the meaning of offence under S. 2(n) and is triable only by a competent Criminal Court and only the said Court can impose penalty under S. 9 and not the revenue authorities or the licensing authority under the Act. On this ground, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector imposing penalty under S. 9 is clearly illegal and devoid of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 200/-.

Petition allowed.