State of Kerala vs Gopalan Nair

M. Madhavan Nair, J.—This appeal is by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who was found smoking in the Auditorium of the Prakash Talkies, Chirakkal, by the Sub Inspector of Police, Baliapatam, while a show was on. The respondent was charged u/s 10(2) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958, for violation of Rule 40 (A) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958. Shri Kaviraj, the Sub Magistrate, Cannanore, accepting the testimony of the Sub Inspector, found the respondent to have committed the act charged, but acquitted him, holding;

Part IV of the rules (40 to 51 K.C.R. Rules) enumerates the rules regarding the building to be used for performance and prescribes certain conditions to be observed by the licensee. All these rules are only directions to the licensee for observance. It is in this part rule 40 (A) occurs and it is the only rule relating to smoking in the said rules...... this prohibition is only one to be observed by the licensee and prescribes that it is the duty of the licensee not to permit any one to smoke inside the auditorium at any time. Section 40 (A) therefore has no reference to the public who go there and witness the performance.... I find that the accused has not committed an offence u/s 40 (A) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules and acquit him u/s 245 (1) Crl. P.C.

Hence this appeal. Rule 40(A) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958, says "smoking shall not be permitted within the Auditorium.''" What is prohibited is not only the licensee''s permitting spectators to smoke, but smoking within the Auditorium. I find no indication in the rule that its obligation is only on licensees of the theatres and not on "the public who go there". What the law says "shall not be permitted" it prohibits imperatively. To say that the Rule is only a direction to the licensee for his observance and that it has no reference to the public-as the Sub Magistrate has done-is to take the sap out of the Rule. The object of the Rule, which is obviously for the benefit of the generality of cinema goers, makes it clear that its obligation is not on the licensee alone but on one and all in the auditorium of a theatre.

Rule 2 of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules commands.

(i) These rules shall apply to all Cinema licenses issued or renewed or extended in the State of Kerala after the issue of these rules.

(ii) These rules shall apply to all Cinema premises existing in the State of Kerala on the date of issue of these rules on the expiry of a period of one year from the said date during which period they shall continue to be governed by the rules in force on the date immediately preceding the said date.''

It is clear that the applicability of the K.C. (R) Rules is not confined to the licensees. The enunciation of clause (ii) of the above Rule makes it clear that the application of the Rules extends to Cinema premises, that is to say, to all who are using or otherwise concerned with Cinema premises.

Counsel for respondent contended that, if the Legislature intended to impose an obligation on the spectators, it could have stated so directly and openly I do not see much force in this argument. One thing may be expressed in several ways; and one mode of expression may appear to be more comprehensive and clear to some, while another to some others. The criterion is not how a provision could have been worded but what the expressed wording means and connotes. What the Legislature says ''shall not be permitted'' it obviously means shall not be done by anybody with or without permission. I feel no hesitation to hold that Rule 40(A) prohibits ''smoking'' in the auditorium of a Cinema.

Even if strict literal construction is adhered to the command in the Rule is that smoking shall not be permitted within the Auditorium. The negative form in which the obligation under the Rule is put indicates that it inheres on everybody without distinction. Men in the Auditorium are not exempted therefrom. What one shall not permit others to do, one cannot do himself. When the respondent began to smoke he had not only permitted smoking to be within the Auditorium but had brought smoking into the Auditorium. If ''smoking is the object of inhibition under the Rule, it can be easily found that the respondent had actively permitted the prohibited object to be in the prohibited place and thereby openly contravened the imperative law in the Rule. He has therefore rendered himself liable to punishment u/s 10(2) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958.

Chinubhai Haridas Vs. The State of Bombay, , Yakoob Vs. State, and 1958 KLT 453 cited by counsel for the respondent deal with provisions in other laws (not relating to smoking in theatres) which do not correspond with the Rule concerned here, either in their expression or in their purpose. They are therefore of no assistance here. "(1)it is no sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act. The meanings of words and expressions used in an Act must take their color from the context in which they appear". Pandit Ram Narain Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, . In the result, I reverse the acquittal of the respondent and convict him u/s 10(2) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958, read with Rule 40(A) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958, and fine him Rs. 25/-.