[ad_1]
The Madras High Court on Monday annulled criminal proceedings against Tamil star Dhanush and Aishwarya Rajinikanth who were pending before the city’s Magistrates’ Court, for allegedly displaying banners for the Tamil film Velayela Pattadari, prominently displaying a picture of Dhanush smoking a cigarette.
Judge N. Anand Venkatesh acknowledged the petitions presented by Dhanush, Aiswarya and three others. Originally, on a private complaint filed by family member Cyril Alexander, proceedings were initiated against Dhanush and Aishwarya.
In his order, the judge said the only allegation made in the complaint was that advertising banners for the film were found to prominently bear the image of the lead actor smoking a cigarette.
This law, by itself, cannot be placed under the jurisdiction of Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (Prohibition of Advertising, Regulation of Trade, Production, Supply and Distribution) (COPTA) since the supply is not made by persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other other tobacco products, the judge said.
The judge added that the person who was photographed as a smoker was not bound by any contract with the entity or person working in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products and was not promoting their products.
The judge said that the criminal law must be interpreted precisely because the outcome of an action taken under the law will affect life or personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this court cannot be swayed by popular emotions and beliefs and the court must necessarily interpret the judgments accurately and find out whether the facts of the case constitute a crime. If the facts do not constitute a crime then the court cannot attempt to broaden the scope of the sentence by considering the harmful effect that Tobacco or a tobacco product can have a negative impact on society, especially the younger generation,” Al-Qadi added.
The judge said that the complainant appeared to have been under the impression that since the producers and distributors of the film were engaged in erecting the signs/posters with the lead actor who was found to be smoking, the same would constitute an offense under Section 5 of the COTPA.
“The producers and distributors in this case were involved in the film industry and not in the trade in cigarettes or other tobacco products. This vital distinction between what is in the judgment and what emerges from the allegations in the complaint makes a huge difference.
The judge added and annulled the proceedings: “In light of the aforementioned discussions, continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the court’s procedures and, therefore, requires the intervention of this court.”
[ad_2]
