Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Film Distributor Swargachitra Appachan | Alleged Tampering Of 2004 Movie Vellinakshathram Found Baseless
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath held that further criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be sustained under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Court directed that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed, stating that the prosecution had failed to produce material to establish that the scene in question was interpolated after the film was certified by the competent authority.
The matter arose from proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who was arrayed as the second accused in a case concerning exhibition of the Malayalam feature film “Vellinakshathram.” The prosecution alleged that the film contained a scene in which the prime actor was seen strangulating a small child to death. The allegation was that the particular scene, which caused panic and distress among viewers, had been inserted after the film was certified by the Censor Board. The trial court proceedings were based on Crime No. 97/2004 registered at Thampanoor Police Station, subsequently culminating in C.C. No. 712 of 2011 before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings. The petitioner contended that even if the allegations in the final report were accepted at face value, no offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Cinematograph Act was made out against him. The contention centered on the absence of material establishing that the alleged objectionable scene had been interpolated into the certified film after clearance by the Censor Board.
The offence alleged was punishable under Section 7(1)(b) of the Cinematograph Act, which stipulates punishment for any person who, without lawful authority, alters or tampers with a film after it has been certified. The prosecution’s case was that the petitioner, as distributor, had a role in the exhibition of the altered version of the film. However, Annexure A, the final report, did not contain material evidence to substantiate that interpolation occurred post-certification. The prosecution had also not clarified which portions of the film were certified and which were allegedly added later. The petitioner argued that the absence of such material evidence rendered the charge unsustainable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.V. Anoop, argued that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, as the foundational requirement to attract Section 7(1)(b)—namely proof of alteration after certification—was not met. The learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Sangeetha Raj N.R., represented the State and opposed the plea.
The Court carefully examined the statutory requirement under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act. Justice Edappagath stated: “Section 7(1)(b) of the Act says that if any person without lawful authority alters or tampers with in any way any film after it has been certified, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.” The Court explained that for the offence to be attracted, it must be shown prima facie that the accused, without authority, altered or tampered with the film after certification.
The Court recorded: “Admittedly, the film has been certified by the Censor Board under Section 5A of the Act. If the film is duly certified, unless it is established that the accused added any scene to the certified film after the certification, no prosecution under Section 7(1)(b) can be initiated against him.” The Judge noted that the crucial issue was whether the objectionable scene was part of the certified film or whether it constituted an interpolation.
After considering Annexure A, the Court stated: “A perusal of the final report would show that there is absolutely no material to show that the objectionable scene was incorporated after the movie had been certified by the authority.” The Court also recorded: “The prosecution also has no case which are the portions that are certified by the authorities and which are the portions not certified.” Justice Edappagath held that unless the prosecution could establish which portions were certified and which were not, Section 7(1)(b) could not be invoked.
The Court stated: “Simply because a movie contains a scene creating panic or distress to its viewers, it will not constitute an offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act unless it is established that the said scene was not part of the original film certified by the Censor Board and it was an interpolation.” On this basis, the Court concluded that the allegations, even if believed in entirety, did not make out an offence under the provision.
On the basis of its findings, the Court allowed the petition. Justice Edappagath directed: “The upshot of the above discussion is that even if all the entire allegations in the final report together with the materials collected during investigation which form part of the final report are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act is made out against the petitioner. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in proceeding further against the petitioner. Hence, all further proceedings against the petitioner/2nd accused in C.C.No. 712 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram are hereby quashed.”
Thus, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. P.V. Anoop, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Sangeetha Raj N.R., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Appachan v. State of Kerala & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:50771
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 3547 of 2015
Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath
