Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate continued his arguments and demonstrated that Cinematograph Act, 1952 is a special Act which provides complete machinery including the grant of license as well as punishment for its violation. He further argued that where there is a special legislation providing complete machinery, the general legislation i.e., the Indian Penal Code will not apply. In support of his arguments he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court titled “Raj Kapoor Vs. Laxman”. Relying upon this judgment he demonstrated that in view of this judgment the present prosecution of Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal as well as the Licensee Company is prohibited.
Mr. Prem Kumar further argued that in the year 1979 the licensing authority himself inspected the cinema in compliance of the directions issued by Delhi High Court and after inspection allowed the retention of seats, gangways and exit doors in substantial compliance of Cinematograph Rules, 1953. He further argued that since the licensing authority has given a clean chit and found every thing in accordance with the rules as such the licensee can not at all be held guilty.
It was also argued and demonstrated that it was the company i.e., Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt. Ltd., who was the licensee. He also pointed out and demonstrated from court record that in the year 1979 the license was misplaced somewhere in transit and an application for issuance of duplicate license was given by the company and not by any individual. In substance he tried to establish that it was the company who was licensee and not Mr. Sushil Ansal. Since the license was in accordance with the rules and regulations, rightly the prosecution has not made the licensor an accused.
Earlier Mr. R.K. Naseem had shown from the judicial file that from 1993 onwards the applications were moved by Mr. K.L Malhotra, General Manager and affidavits for renewal of annual licenses of the cinema were signed by Mr. RM Puri, the Whole Time Director of the Cinema. The Chief Investigating Officer Mr. R.S. Khatri also in his deposition in the court had confirmed that the company was the owner of the cinema as well as the licensee and not any individual.
