JUDGMENT
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.
1. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu has taken cognizance of offence under Section 8(1) of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952(No. XXX of 1952)(here in after referred to as ‘the Act’) against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners continued to run the cinema house despite the expiry of the licence granted to them. The petitioners have challenged this order by this application under Section 482 Cr. PC on the ground that no offence is made out against them at all and, therefore, the cognizance could not have been taken.
2. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a few facts may be mentioned. Petitioner Smt. Shashi Rani Gupta is the Manager of the Cinema and petitioner No. 2 Alok is her son. The original licence granted to the cinema house called ‘Alok Chitra Mandir’ was renewed up to March 31, 1984. No application for its renewal was made within the prescribed time and despite the expiry of the licence, the cinema continued. It appears that some notice was issued to the petitioner not to run the cinema without renewal of the licence and, thereupon on March 28, 1985, the petitioner No. 1 applied for the renewal of the licence. This renewal was refused by the learned Collector, the authority under Section 5 of the Act, by his order dated July 2, 1985. The ground for refusal was that a clearance certificate had not been produced from the authority under the Entertainment, Tax Act. After that, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu for offences under Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act. In between, it appears that petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 5(3) of the Act against order of learned Collector dated July 2, 1985. That appeal was accepted by the State Government by its order dated July 20, 1985 and a direction was issued to the learned Collector that since a copy of the no due certificate had already been filed before the Government, the Collector may look into it and if he is satisfied on that score, he may pass appropriate orders. It further transpires that in pursuance of that order, the Collector, Churu, by his order dated September 3, 1985, renewed the licence. The renewal order reads as under:
Renewed upto 31st March, 1987 subject to condition that it will have no adverse affect on the FIR already lodged on 4-7-1985.
3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the contention that the cinema was run after the expiry of the original licence from March 31, 1984 despite the refusal of the renewal by the Collector and as such offence under Section 8(1) of the Act has been committed.
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when once the licence has been renewed by the learned Collector under Rule 7 after accepting the penalty or additional fee, the renewal must relate back to the date of the expiry of the earlier licence and in that event, it cannot be said that the petitioner had run the cinema house without a licence. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the renewal of the licence on September 3, 1985 does not have any retrospective effect and, therefore, the offence committed by the petitioner from April 1, 1985 up to September 2, 1985 cannot be wiped out and, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under Section 8(1) of the Act.
5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions and, in my opinion, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
6. The grant of licence is governed by Section 5 of the Act. The licence is to be granted by the Licencing Authority, which, in the present case is the Collector, Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act read as under:
(3). Any person aggrieved by the decision of a licensing authority refusing to grant a licence under this Act may, within such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the State Government or to officer as the State Government may specify in this behalf, and the State Government or the officer, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it or he thinks fit.
Then, Section 10 of the Act gives power to the State Government to make Rules for the purpose of the Act and in pursuance of that power, the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1952 (for short ‘the Rules’) have been made by the State Government. Part II of the Rules prescribes the procedure for granting licences and this procedure also contemplates renewal. According to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 new licences have to be granted for a period of 3 years and thereafter they have to be renewed. Rule 7 then provides for application for renewal. For the sake of convenience, Rule 7 is reproduced here under:
(7) Application for renewal:
An application for the renewal of a triennial licence shall be made at least sixty days before the date of the expiry of the existing licence:
Provided that if the application for renewal is made after the prescribed date the licensing authority may renew the licence on payment of an additional fee of Rs. 25/- besides the fee payable under Rule 67.
Now, it may be made clear that although in the body of the Act, there is no provision relating to renewal of the licences granted under Section 5 of the Act, the Rules made for that purpose would clearly show that renewals are to be governed by Section 5 and, therefore, under Sub-section (3) of Section 5, the appeal against the order of the Licensing Authority refusing to renew the licence lies to the State Government or such authority as appointed by it. It was in pursuance of this power that the appeal against the order of the learned Collector was accepted by the State Government by its order dated July 20, 1985 and further in pursuance of this order, the licence has been renewed by the learned Collector on September 3, 1985. It may, of course, be mentioned that while renewing the licence, the learned Collector has mentioned that it will be subject to the condition that it will have no adverse effect on the FIR already lodged on July 4, 1985. But, in my opinion when once the licence has been renewed, this condition loses all its significance because under the proviso to Rule 7 the Licencing Authority has been given a discretion to renew the licence after charging additional fee of Rs. 25/- but it cannot impose any other condition once that fee is charged and renewal is made, it means that the delay in filing the application stands condoned and that being so, the renewal must relate back to the date of the expiry of the original licence. When the licence thus, stands renewed from the date of the expiry of the earlier licence, viz. March 31, 1984, the inevitable conclusion would be that the cinema was being run under a duly renewed licence and that being so, the running of the cinema, in these circumstances, cannot be said to be in contravention of Section 3 of the Act. The renewal would thus relate back to March 31, 1985 and mere observation of the learned Collector that the renewal will have no adverse effect on the FIR already filed, would lose its all its significance. In these circumstances, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in taking cognizance of any offence under Section 8(1) of the Act against them.
7. The application is, therefore, accepted and the order of the learned Magistrate dated January 7, 1986 is quashed.