The Madras High Court on Monday quashed a complaint lodged in 2022 against the makers and the actor of the movie ‘Velaiyilla Pattathari’, popularly referred to as VIP, which was released in 2014.
The complainant had alleged that the accused had violated law by depicting lead actor Dhanush smoking a cigarette in the movie poster.
The allegations against Dhanush, director-producer Aishwarya Rajinikanth and other makers of the movie were that the actor’s smoking poster promoted consumption of cigarettes, which is an offence under Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA). And also, it did not have any disclaimer regarding the use of tobacco.
In 2014, a PIL was filed seeking action against the makers and actor Dhanush, in which a committee was constituted to find out whether there was any violation or not.
In 2021, the State Level Monitoring Committee found that there was a violation of Section 5 of the COTPA and consequently, lodging of a private complaint was ordered.
Thereafter, the accused persons moved the high court seeking direction to quash the complaint.
The single judge bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that Section 5 of the COTPA imposes a complete taboo on the advertisement of cigarettes or any other tobacco products by “persons engaged in or purported to be engaged in production, supply or distribution of those products”.
While stating that the Section is the charging section under a penal law and hence, it has to be construed in a strict manner, Justice Venkatesh opined, “The main thrust of the provision is to prohibit persons, who are engaged in production, supply or distribution of cigarettes or any other tobacco products from advertising the same”.
He stressed that in the instant case, the only allegation was that the advertisement banners of the movie were found to carry the picture of the lead actor prominently smoking cigarette but the makers or the actor were not involved in the business of tobacco.
“This act, per se, cannot be brought within the purview of Section 5 of the COTPA since the display was not done by persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of cigarettes…,” therefore, held the judge.
He added that a penal statute has to be strictly construed and the court cannot be swayed by emotions and popular beliefs.
“If the facts do not constitute an offence, the court cannot try to expand the scope of the provision by considering the adverse impact that a tobacco or tobacco product can have on the society and particularly the younger generation,” said the judge.
Accordingly, Justice Venkatesh held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the accused persons will amount to an abuse of process of court and hence quashed the same.
Comments
0 comment