W.P.No. 1666 / 2001
(Brijesh Kumar Sahu .v. State of M.P. & another)
06-10-2010
Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the State/respondents.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order
dated 2-3-2001 by which the petitioner has been prohibited from
exhibition of films on large screen by use of Intel system which is an
apparatus in itself.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the
petitioner is not using a separate projector or screen as understood in
the common parlance and using a separate apparatus which is an Intel
system, the present case is covered by a decision of this Court in the
case of Ram Kishan and another v. State and another, AIR 2001 MP
176 wherein on recording a statement to the effect that the petitioner
therein was not using a separate projector and screen but was using a
separate Intel system which is an apparatus in itself, the petition was
allowed and the petitioner was permitted to exhibit films on the Intel
system which is an apparatus in itself.
The learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents had
sought time to verify as to matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid
decision and has now made a statement to the effect that as the issue
and facts, as well as the law involved in the present petition are identical
to the one decided in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) and, therefore,
by recording a similar statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner
the present petition can also be disposed of in terms thereof.
The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically stated and
submitted that he is not exhibiting films by use of a separate projector or
screen but is doing so by use of Intel system which is an apparatus in
itself and in such circumstances the petition be disposed of in similar
terms as have been mentioned by this Court in the case of Ram Kishan
(surpa) in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 which are as follows :-
“6. If paragraphs 11 and 13 are read conjointly there
remains no iota of doubt that in a videotorium pictures can be
exhibited by use of Intel as there is no use of projector or
screen a it is understood in common parlance and there is
no /-separate projector or separate screen as understood in
ordinary language of the film.
7. Mr. Raizada, learned State counsel has drawn
/the attention of this Court to the language used in the
Annexures P/5 and P/6 to make a distinction. Submission of
Mr. Raizada is that the petitioners have been restrained from
utilising separate projector and a large screen. In reply it is
putforth by Mr, Adhikari that the petitioners are not using
separate projectors or separate screen but only the apparatus
which is a sophisticated system. Mr. Adhikari also undertakes
that the petitioners shall not use anything else except the Intel
apparatus.
8. In view of this it is directed that if the petitioners
are utilising or using the apparatus of Intel the orders passed
vide Annexures P/5 and P/6 shall not be effective as far as
they are concerned.”
As agreed to as stated by the learned counsel for the parties the
present petition is identical to the aforesaid decision of this Court in the
case of Ram Kishan (supra), the same is also disposed of in the similar
and identical terms as have been mentioned in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of
the order dated 30-11-2000 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 3282/2000
( Ram Kishan and another v. State and another ) reported in AIR
2001 MP 176.
With the aforesaid observations/directions the petition filed by the
petitioner stands disposed of accordingly.
C.C. as per rules.
( R.S.Jha )
mct Judge