If the agent’s act is justified by an relevant regulation, the act could represent a legal offense in one other regulation, the agent could obtain a protection beneath 79 of the Indian Felony Code
Tap to follow:
If the offender’s act is justified by an applicable law, the act possibly constitutes a criminal offense in another law, then the offender may receive a defense under 79 of the Indian Criminal Code prepared by an Avdhesh Parashar student of Maharashtra National Law University Aurangabad
RAJ KAPOOR VS. LAXMAN (1980) 2 SCR 512 (SC)
FACTS OF THE CASE::
Appeal Leader, Raj Kapoor, is the producer of the film “Satyam Shivam Sundaram,” which was released in 1978. A viewer of the film filed a lawsuit against the producer, director, actor, case team, etc. for showing the content against public morals and alleging that the title of the film is misleading the public and showing obscene material. The applicant filed the complaint under Section 292 of India’s 1860 Criminal Code. After examining some witnesses, the court issued a communication to the manufacturer / present complainant. The producer took the court order to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, accusing the criminal case of abuse of law and alleging that the film was duly considered for a public show. The Central Board of Film Censors grants the film the A Certificate under Section 5 (A) of the Cinematograph Act of 1952. The High Court dismissed the producer’s appeal, stating that the appeal to dismiss the case was not frivolous. Violated by the High Court’s order, the manufacturer (appellant) comes to that court defending Section 79 of the Indian Criminal Code to neutralize Section 292 of the Indian Criminal Code of 1860.
Whether the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Censors under Section 5 (A) of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 is deemed to be legally warranted and provides defense to the applicant under Section 79 of the Indian Criminal Code?
- Section 5 (A) of the Cinematograph Act 1952
- Section 79 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860
- Section 292 of India’s Criminal Code, 1860
Allegation of the complainant:
The complainant alleged that the film had received the A Certificate from the Central Board of Film Censors under Section 5 (A) of the Cinematograph Act 1952 and that the complainant violated Section 79 of the Indian Criminal Code. The complainant’s act is justified under Section 79 IPC. The screening of the film was not intended to harm the public’s mood. The complainant considered that his act was justified by law.
Statement of the respondent:
The interviewee argued that the film showed obscene content in the name of a good title. The producer, actor and director has misled the public with a fascinating title, showing profanity, indecency, which is punishable under Section 292 of the Indian Criminal Code.
The Hon’ble Court ruled that Section 79 of the IPC is defending an agent who has committed an act that is otherwise a criminal offense, under the good faith that he is legally entitled to do so. The Section 79 weapon is immune to the perpetrator of any act who is entitled in good faith to carry out that legally justified act. Additionally, the Hon’ble Court ruled that the film had been certified by the Central Board of Film Censors under Section 5 (b) of the Act after reviewing all items of Section 292 of the IPC. IPC is common law and Cinematograph Act is special law. The members of the Board of Directors have a high level of specialist knowledge. The court ruled that the certificate was issued after reviewing all material aspects of Section 292. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court ruled that the applicant’s act was deemed justified by law and falls within the scope of Section 79 of the IPC. Thus the appeal is admissible and it is right to absolve the accused from the charge as it is unfounded and removes the prosecution from the trial.