M NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A partnership firm called Amba Enterprises owning and running newly constructed 70 M.M., "Amba Cinema Theater" situate at Mehedipatnam, Hyderabad, is the petitioner in this Writ Petition complaining against an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and confirmed by the State Government holding it to be guilty of violating Condition No. 27 of the licence read with S. 10(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Act of 1955 (Act, hereafter).

(2.) On 9-8-1979, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who is the licensing authority under the above Act, had received a complaint with regard to the running of this theater by the petitioner. The substance of the complaint was that on 8-8-1978 motion-pictures were being exhibited in the theatre without the air-cooling apparatus functioning to full capacity causing the cine-goers discomfort and deprivation of the entertainment pleasure to which they were entitled. The complainant and his companions who visited the theatre for the first show paid at the rate of Rs. 4.00 per head under tickets Nos. 4935 to 4938 and suffered this discomfort. The complainant first enquired of the manager of the theatre about the reason for the non-functioning of the air-cooling apparatus and received the customary but unsatisfactory explanation from the manager that there was a failure in supply of electricity. The complainant who is the Deputy Commissioner of Police without rejecting this explanation as irrelevant under the Act, took trouble to investigate into the truth of the petitioners explanation. The Deputy Police Commissioner, found this explanation wholly untrue. He not only found the adjoining street lights bright but also lights within the theatre functioning normally. He therefore concluded that the failure to run the air-cooling apparatus was wilful. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, therefore, filed a complaint to the licensing authority the Commissioner of Police, alleging that the proprietor of Amba Theatre had been running the theatre contrary to condition No. 27 of the licence. On the basis of that complaint, the Commissioner of Police instituted an inquiry, issued a show cause notice to the manager of the theatre on 9/08/1979 calling upon him to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 in lieu of suspension of the cinematograph licence for a period of one month should not be imposed for violating the provisions of the Cinematograph Rules and more particularly, Condition No. 27 of the licensing conditions of the Cinematograph Rules of 1970. The petitioner in a lengthy reply took all sorts of contradictory objections. The petitioner complained that the show cause notice was so vague as to disable him even to give a proper reply. Yet, without prejudice to that contention (whatever that might not mean) he did submit a lengthy reply. In that reply the managing partner stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Hyderabad, came at 8-15 p.m. to the theatre and assaulted the manager of the theatre within the licensed premises without any reason or rhyme; that when the first show was running there was sudden power breakdown necessitating the use of the generator for running the cinema including the air-cooling apparatus. The petitioner submitted that when the aforesaid Deputy Commissioner of Police questioned him why the air-cooling plant was not working to its capacity, the petitioner explained that as there was power breakdown the generator had to be used to do all the work. This explanation, according to the petitioner, infuriated the Deputy Commissioner of Police and led him first to assault the manager of the cinema theatre and later to file the complaint before the Commissioner of Police.

(3.) An examination of the reply even favourably considered in support of the petitioner shows that the petitioner in his reply did not deny altogether the charge that the air-cooling plant was not working to full capacity. The petitioner blamed the failure of supply of electricity as necessitating the use of generator that use of generator that could not run both the cine-projector and air-cooling apparatus to full capacity. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that he did not wilfully violate the provisions of the Cinematograph Rules by not maintaining or running the apparatus as required by Condition No. 27.