- (1.) By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constituti9on, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the order dt. Nov. 25, 1985 passed by the Joint Secretary tot he Governnment of India in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ACt), reversing the rder dt April 11, 1985 passed by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal under S 5C of the Act and directing that the Marathi feature film " Maficha Sakshidar" (Approver) shall not be certified for public exhibition.
(2.) The broad theme of the film is based on the chain of murders that took place in the ciryt of Pune and which created quite a sensation and ultimatelky led to the criminal trial came tot be known as ' Joshi abhyankar Murdur trial and ended in conciction of the accused and imposition of death senteces. The petitioenr is a producer of the films and the film in question after cmpletion was submitted for certificate tothe Central Board of Film Certification, Bombay on Sept, 19, 1983, The film opens with a court scne and the approver making his statement and then with a flash back the se5ris of murders committed by the accused are pisctred. The offenders are students studying in local college and initially the memebrs of the gang indulged in stealing scooter and motor-bikes parked on the streets. Subsequently the leadler of the gang, one Rahavendra, motor and idea whereby demand of large sum of moneny is made tothe father of one of the team mates on the pretex that his son has been kidhapped and shall be relesed only on payment of the amount. The gang then decides to murder the team mate who aw as allegeed to have beebn kidnapped and after murder to the body is put is a drum which is dumped in tank situated in the partk. The members of the gang thendecide to commit robbery in the bungalow of one Hise and duirng the commission of the crime murder three memebrs of the family. The gang then proceeds to the bungalaoe fo an old Sanskrit Scholar and while robbing his house commits murder of five family memebrs . The gang thereafter proceeods to another bungalow and tries to rob the occupants but fails in their endeavour and had to flee due to daring act of a courageous had to flee due to yuound lad. By this time there is quite as stir in the town and the police and the Government officers wer taken to task by the people. One of the team mates therafeter advise the gang leadert stop the commission of any further crime and that angers the leader and that team member is also murdered and that the dead body is thrown in the river. The murders are committed by means of strangulation by a rope nand the offenders take precaution of weraring gloves so as not to leave behind any finger markds and also used to spray aromatic liquid at the scene of offence with a view to baffle the police dogs, who were likely to trace the offenders. At this juncture one of the offernders decides to leave the gang and is thereupon thretned by theother members with dire consequences. The offender with thereupon rushes to the police station and makes a clean breast for the offences committed by him in the company of the other accused. The police machinery then immediately takes steps to round up the accuesed and the four accused are tried in the court of Session and the approver gives evidence. The trilal results into convistion of four accused are a carried in the Court of Session and the approver gives evidence. The trial results into conviction of four accused and imposition of sentence of death. While the four accused are carried in the police van tothe jail, the gang leader is removed tohe hospital and decides to punish her son who has cuased great angusih to several familites, and cuts the life giving tubes attached to the leader resulting three acused are hanged in accordance with law.
(3.) The film after being submitted for certification by the petiioner a was viewed by the examining committee conssisting of five memebr and on Sept. 20, 1983 decided to grant 'A' Certificate without any cuts. However, the Chairman, Central Board of film Certification on his own referred the film to the revising committee consisting of nine members. The Revising Committee viewed the film on Octtober 14, 1983 and six members felt that 'A' Certificate should be granted , but differed amongst themselves about the cuts top be effected; while the remaining three members declined to issue certificate for the release of the film. Thereupon by the Chairman and this Committee unaimously communicated refusal of certificate. The petitioner was informed of the proviison decision of refusal of certificate and wass called upon to show cuse why that decision should not be confiemdd. After considering the reprensetation made by the petitioner, the Committee confirmed its earlier decision. The petitioner then prepared a revised version after deleting about 227 feet film from the original version and resubmitted it for certificatrion. The Examining Committee recommended refusal of certificate and so also the Revising Commttieie. The petitioner again made representation, but without any favourable response. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed on December 12, 1983 that the certificate cannot be granted.;