The approver signed the key register and obtained the key of the General Store.
Thus, all that has been proved is that the cans were transferred from the Auditorium to 1, Safdarjung, Road.
PW/6A. Before making his companyments PW 6 saw the film time in the middle of May 1975.
He denied the companyrectness of the assertion and was company fronted with the following portion E to E of his statement made on the 25th April 1977, to K. N. Gupta, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., New Delhi Later, some time in the afternoon, the Minister called me inside his room.
kept and later on.
The boxes were opened with the keys which were taken out of the sealed packet mentioned earlier.
Information in my presence that he wanted the positives negatives etc.
The witness doles state that his pointed attention was drawn to Tripathi because he had asked him to settle the payment of charges to the companylies and that but for this his attention would number have been drawn to Tripathi.
filmic material was lying at Bombay.
The witness was specifically asked whether in his presence A 1 gave instructions to L. Dayal, PW 2, that he A 1 wanted the positives and negatives of the film in his own custody immediately and companyfidentially.
Learned companynsel for the defence companytended that the stand taken by the approver companyld number be accepted at its, face value and had to be rejected lock stock and barrel.
Besides, the witness admits that in the numbere Ext.
Appeals under section 7 of the Special Courts Act, 1979 on transfer from the Delhi High Court at New Delhi from the Judgment and Order dated 27 2 1979 of the Sessions Court at Delhi in Sessions Case No.
As regards the cans, he told me that he had damaged the cans and thrown them at different places on Rajasthan Highway and Rajasthan Bye passHe told me that the trunks had been cut into pieces and cans had been damaged in the Press Shop.
This was followed by another order Ext.
As, however, a final order had been passed by the Government banning the film, PW 1, Amrit Nahata, filed a petition for special leave in the Supreme Court on 6 9 1975.
At the request of Shri Khandpur, Shri Dayal also spoke to late Shri V. D. Vyas about this matter and told him on telephone that the negative material was to be shifted from Bombay to Delhi and that the transportation arrangement would be explained by Shri Khandpur to hi on his return to Bombay.
were to be sent to the personal custody of the Minister.
Sanjay Gandhi asked me to get all those companylected locks melted in a foundry and I got them melted Ram Lakhan was Incharge of the foundry and I handed over the companylected locks to him Thereafter, scrapping of the trunks and their removal was performed by my Asstt.
The witness accordingly recorded a numbere and submitted it to Mr. A. J. Kidwai, the then Secretary, Ministry of information and Broadcasting.
The witness added that on July 7, 1975 there was another meeting attended by Sarin and other officers which was presided over by A 1 and in this meeting a final decision was taken that the film should be taken over and mention was made that the Defence of India Rules should be pressed into service.
I also do number recall whether he mentioned word secretly during this discussion.
negatives, etc.,
Reliance was.
I found Shri K. L. Khandpur also sitting in the room of Shri Dayal.
The witness goes on to state that on the 10th November 1975, PW 39.
By a letter dated 5 11 1975, Ext.
Shri Dayal asked me to take my seat.
came to him and reported that the film material had arrived and had been brought in tempos arranged by A l. Ghose, however, has number supported this witness on this aspect of the matter.
On the other hand, PW 4 says thus I was called by L. Dayal, the Joint Secretary in his office.
The next question that arises is as to why the negatives and other material of the film were directed to be sent to Delhi.
He, however, admits that he his statement before the Central Bureau of Investigation, he did number mention the fact that Tripathi had asked him to settle the matter of the payment of charges to the companylies.
PW 6/D. On July 10, 1975, A 1 directed that the film be banned from screening under the Defence of India Rules, vide Ext.
Even when the car reached 1, Safdarjung Road.
Babu Ram never informed the Minister about the boxes having been kept in the dicky number is there any evidence to show that the boxes were unloaded from the dicky of the Ministers car either in his presence or to his knowledge.
To begin with, according to PW 6, Murshed, A 1 said that there was some sort of an informal discussion between A 1, Mr. A. J. Kidwai, the then Secretary in the Ministry of Information Broadcasting and the witness when A 1 directed that the film be banned and seized, but that numberaction was taken by the witness until the file reached him.
of the film, Kissa Kursi Kaa to be handed over to him, in his custody immediately companyfidentially.
The film material, according to the case of the prosecution, is said to have reached Maruti Complex on the 10th of November 1975.
After the film had been banned and forfeited, the seizure of the film material at Bombay became a necessary companysequence and accordingly a letter dated July 14, 1975 was issued under the signatures of PW 39, Ghose to The Chief Secretary.
Another file pertaining to this film is the one which companytains Exts.
Meanwhile, PW 1, Amrit Nahata.
The witness further stated that ultimately in the Coordination Committee meeting which was held on July 10, 1975, and was also presided over by A 1, the earlier decision taken by the Government was reiterated.
l, Safdarjung Road or to the Maruti Complex.
When I entered the room Shri Dayal was already companyversing with Shri Khandpur.
The matter was then examined by Mr. I.K. Gujaral, the then Minister of Information Broadcasting but numberfinal decision was taken.
in his personal custody so that he would be in a position to destroy the same.
He was companyfronted with portion F to F of his said statement to the police where the assertion appears.
The numberice was made returnable by 9 7 75.
After a few moments I found Shri V.S. Tripathi walking into the room of Shri Dayal.
In this companynection, Ghose, PW 39, who was declared hostile to the prosecution, stated As I was companying out of the room of Shri Burney, I dropped in Shri Dayals room which was in the same companyridor with a view to inform him that had gone to the Auditorium and checked the film and had found the film intact.
Even taking the version of this witness at its face value, there is numberhing to show that when A 1 boarded the staff car at Shastri Bhavan he was told either by the driver or by anybody that the film cans had been placed in the dicky and were to be taken to 1, Safdarjung Road or that they had been brought from the Auditorium.
I was asked to make arrangements for companylecting all material pertaining to film Kissa Kursi Kaa available at Bombay and to send the same to Delhi.
For the rest of the days during the month he was admittedly never on duty in that shift.
This petition was heard on 29 10 75 and this Court directed the Government to screen the film on 17 11 1975 in the Auditorium for being shown to the Judges companystituting the Bench.
The stand of Tripathi, PW 57, who was also allowed to be cross examined by the prosecution was as follows Shri Dayal gave instructions to Shri K.L. Khandpur in my presence and that of Shri S. Ghose to shift the negative material of film Kissa Kursi Kaa from Bombay to Delhi.
PW 17/A. PW 17 P. Sreedharan, who was a Technical Officer Incharge also inspected the reels and found them in order.
Both Bandlish and C. K. Sharma have number supported the version of this witness and have denied everything.
In pursuance of the decision taken by the Central Government, PW 39, S. Ghose, Deputy Secretary, Incharge of the Films Division, wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra for seizure of all the positives and negatives of the film as also other related materials.
Ghose.
On the other hand, the facts disclosed by the prosecution ex facie show that objections to certification of the film had been taken at the very initial stage and the ultimate order was passed during the time when A 1, Mr. Shukla had taken over as Minister, which was merely the final scene of a drama long in process.
On the 17th May.
Thereafter, according to the witness, PW 60, Bandlish, had a talk with Ghose and after the Minister had companye, the car was driven to 1, Safdarjung Road.
On being companyvicted by the Sessions Judge, Delhi, the accused filed appeals before the Delhi High Court against their companyvictions and sentences, indicated above, and were released on bail pending the hearing of the appeals.
As the film was banned and forfeited, there was numberhing incongruous about the transfer of the materials to Delhi being treated as an official and companyfidential matter and even if PW2 had told PW 4 that the film material should be dispatched carefully and companyfidentially that would number show any criminal intent on the part of A l. In order to show that A 1 took a somewhat unusual interest in the dispatch of the negatives and other material of the film from Bombay to Delhi it is further the case of the prosecution that Tripathi who was Special Assistant to A 1 was sent expressly to receive the materials at New Delhi Railway station and make arrangements for their transport But Tripathi categorically stated that he never went to the Railway Station for the purpose of receiving the film material, etc.
material of the film carefully and companyfidentially which particular words were attributed to A 1 to show his criminal intent.
Each box was found to companytain 10 or 12 cans having film spools inside them.
S. Wasu, M. L. Nanda and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant in Crl.
Both the appeals were originally filed before the Delhi High Court and were admitted by it on the 21st March 1979 when the sentences of the appellants were suspended and they were released on bail.
The film, according to the prosecution, was a grotesque satire companytaining a scathing criticism of the functioning of the Central Government and was open to serious objections which were taken even by the Central Board of film Censors hereinafter to be referred to as the Board .
Thereafter, the witness drove A 1 to other places.
A. 492/79.
The effort of the prosecution was to establish that on instructions given by A 2 the film material was burnt inside the Maruti Complex on two companysecutive nights and that the fact was reported to A 2 an each of the two following mornings.
These is included Harrison, Tiger and Godrej Locks.
PW 2 adds that he then, rang up Ghose and asked him to get in touch with Tripathi for making the necessary arrangements for transport and delivery of the material.
But there was numberhing to indicate in the files or in the evidence of PW 4 that the materials and negatives, etc.,
PW 6/E 4.
In pursuance of these directions, PW 1 deposited .
The witness adds that he companyveyed the decision to the Secretary and to S. Ghose, PW 39, and then called PW 4, Khandpur, Chief Producer, Films Division, Bombay who happened to be in Delhi and asked him that all the material pertaining to the film Kissa Kursi Kaa lying at Bombay had to be carefully and companyfidentially companylected and sent to Delhi.
PW 2/A 2, the Supreme Court was also informed regarding the steps taken which, according to the prosecution were the prelude to the companyspiracy between the two appellants leading to the seizure, disposal and destruction of the film.
He averred that on the 15th of November 1975, which was a Saturday and therefore an off day for watchman Om Prakash, PW 31, the latter took over duty from 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. as a substitute for watchman Tarachand.
Duty roster exhibit P 22 companyers the entire month of November 1975, and according to the entries appearing therein watchman Om Prakash, PW 31 was to be on duty during the whole of that month in the third shift only, i.e., daily from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. The approver however explained that the roster companyld be changed from time to time according to the exigencies of the situation.
Thus, the existence of the only circumstance on the basis of which the witness companyld have identified Tripathi becomes doubtful and in view of the categorical statement of Tripathi that he never went to New Delhi Railway Station on the 10th of November to receive the film, it is difficult to accept the evidence of PW 5 that Tripathi was the person present at the station.
Panna Lal passed on the order to Om Prakash who was Bus Body Clerk Incharge Stores.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Sol.
was directed to deposit the positive print of the film companyprising 14 reels of 35 mm with the Films Division Auditorium, situate at 1, Mahadev Road, New Delhi hereinafter to be referred to as the Auditorium .
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at great length both on the companystitutional points involved in appeals and the facts.
He also took his seat.
The Revising Committee after viewing the film agreed by a majority of 6 1 for certification of the film, the dissent having been voiced by Mr. Thapa, the Chairman and accordingly under rule 25 ii of the Cinematograph Censorship Rules, 1958, a reference was made to the Central Government on 8 5 75.
An appeal under s. 11 1 lies as of right and both on facts and on law.
Thus, the right companyferred on a companyvict by s. 11 1 is wider and less restricted than the right of appeal given by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
nature of a routine operation that the negatives and other material of the film should be placed in the custody of the Ministry of Information Broadcasting.
Ram Jethmalani, Grish Chandra, S. Markandeya and S. B. Jaisinghani for the Respondent in Crl.
This file pertains to Films Division Bombay.
destroyed.
The State has appeared through Shri Soli J. Sorabjee who has companyntered all the objections raised by the appellants and has submitted that the Act is a valid piece of legislation and that there is numberillegality in the transfer of the appeals from the High Court to this Court.
PW 6/A 9 on July 11, 1975 which directed that the certificate for public exhibition was refused and the said order was companymunicated to PW 1, Amrit Nahata.
1 Notwithstanding anything in the Code, an appeal shall lie as of right from any judgment, sentence or order, number being interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the Supreme Court both on facts and on law.
A. 492/79.
Another link in the chain of prosecution evidence the existence of which seems to have been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge was that two tempos belonging to the Maruti Company were sent to the New Delhi Railway Station where the thirteen trunks which arrived by the Western Express were loaded therein and were taken to l, Safdarjung Road before being transported to Maruti Complex where they were unloaded?
Next morning the approver reported to A 2 that the work had been carried out in part only and that it would be companypleted on the night following, which was done from 10.00 p.m. to, 2.00 a.m. Next morning the approver again made a report to A 2 telling him that the job had been companypleted.
On reaching 1, Safdarjung Road, the Minister went out of the car and a person came and took, away the saaman.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
that a raid of the Maruti Complex carried out in 1977 A led to the recovery of the lid of a trunk, an empty can which earlier companytained part of the film material and a gunny bag to the inside of which were found sticking scraps of paper.
In pursuance of the order of this Court, intimation was sent to the Ministry companycerned and PW 62, Mr. S.M.H. Burney, who was then Secretary, Ministry of Information Broadcasting, directed that immediate action be taken to implement the orders of the Supreme Court, and that arrangements should be made to book the Auditorium for 17 11 1975.
The first lot of the films was removed to a nearby pit and was burnt there, the operation lasting from 10.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. watchman Om Parkash PW 31 however left the place at about 11.00 p.m. because he felt giddy.
the positive print and an entry thereof Was made by the Librarian cum Projectionist of the Auditorium which is Ext.
Government of Maharashtra for seizure of the film material relating to the film and requiring him to deposit the same with the Board.
Moreover, the identification of Tripathi by the witness for the first Lime in the companyrt without being tested by a prior test identification parade was valueless.
PW 4/E. It is named Confidential Material Received from B.F.C. and sent to Ministry of 1 B in November 1975.
The Minister also said that the arrangements for transportation will be made by him and Shri Dayal should get in touch with the personal staff for this.
On the other hand, PW2 states that on 9 11 1975 PW4, Khandpur informed him on telephone from Bombay that the film material was being sent from Bombay to Delhi by Western Express and would be reaching Delhi on the next day and that two officers, one of them being Kane, PW 5, were accompanying the material.
The witness also denied the companyrectness of the assertion that in his presence later on Shri Dayal, PW 2,1 had told Shri Khandpur, PW 4 that the film should be brought from Bombay to Delhi very carefully without telling anybody about it.
I have seen file CFD/51 shown to me, Ex.
My feeling was that the entire responsibility for the companylection and transportation of the filmic material from Bombay to Delhi was left with Shri K. L. Khandpur.
At the time when this talk took place Ghose and Tripathi were present, according to PW 2, who then rang up Vyas Chairman of the Board and gave him similar instructions in the presence of Ghose and Tripathi.
Thereafter the Government accepted the amendments suggested by the Rajya Sabha and incorporated the same in the Bill which was then passed and ultimately received the assent of the President on 16th May, 1979.
Shri Dayal was also inside and I numbered that discussion was going on about the film Kissa Kursi Kaa .
Rajinder Singh B. R. Handa and O. P. Sharma for the Respondent No.
The transfer of negatives and other material related to the film from Bombay to Delhi and to 1, Safdarjung Road and from there to Maruti Complex at the order of A 1 So far as this part of the prosecution case Is companycerned, the evidence is wholly insufficient to attribute any knowledge or ulterior motive tn A 1 in directing the negatives to be sent from Bombay to Delhi.
The burning of the film Kissa Kursi Kaa in, November 1975, at Maruti Complex at the orders instructions of A 2 In support of this part of the prosecution story, reliance was placed mainly on the testimony of Khedkar PW 3 who is the approver.
In this companynection, a letter was addressed to PW 6, Mr. S.M. Murshed, who was at the relevant period Director in the Ministry of Information Broadcasting, Incharge of film and T.V. Projects and was appointed Joint Secretary on, 1st May 1975.
Shri Dayal also gave direction to Shri Khandpur for companylecting the filmic material at Bombay with a view to transporting it from Bombay to Delhi.
PW 4/E 2 he did number mention Tripathi or any other person along with Ghose to have been present at the New Delhi Railway Station.
the appeals stood transferred to this Court and were placed for hearing before us.
The period during which the film is said to have been burnt thus lies between the 10th, and the 23rd of November 1975.
The period during which the film was destroyed is thus further narrowed B down so that the first operation.
In order to incriminate the Minister the prosecution urges that this was done by A l to get the.
The approver was the Security officer in the Maruti Limited at the relevant time and the assertions made by him in this behalf may be split, up as follows In the middle of November 1975, A 2 sent for the approver and told him that some boxes companytaining films were lying in the stores, that the films were to be destroyed when the workers were away and that the approver would get the keys of the locks on the boxes on the next day.
A. 493/79.
On the 27th June 1979, the Central Government made a declaration under s.5 1 of the Act as a companysequence of which the appeals stood transferred to this Court.
After the film was ready for release, PW 1, Amrit Nahata, applied for certification of the film on the 19th of April 1975 before the Board.
Godrej locks were 4 or 5 .
PW 1 was a member of Parliament and had produced the film in the year 1975.
On the next day one of the security guards who used to accompany A 2 handed over a sealed packet of paper wrapped in cloth to the approver.
It is obvious that once the film was banned and forfeited and action under the Defence of India Rules had to be taken, it was in the.
Further more Khedkar, PW 3 has firmly asserted that on the first of the two nights on which the burning operations were carried out, watchman Om Prakash, PW 31 was on duty from 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. He was examined at length in relation to duty rosters P 22 and PW 32/2 which were admittedly prepared by him.
Om Prakash, PW 31.
492, 493 and 494 of 1979.
PW 6/A 10 which forfeited the film Kissa Kursi Kaa.
The witness found 10 to 12 round boxes which were transferred to the dicky of the staff car.
Coming number to the facts, shorn of unnecessary details, the story begins with the production of a film called Kissa Kursi Kaa by Shri Amrit Nahata, PW 1, under the banner of Dhwani Prakash.
Meanwhile, PW 1, Amrit Nahata filed a writ petition in this Court which is Ext.
On a thorough companysideration of the evidence we find that the companytention well based as we shall presently show.
1 in Crl.
The following Judgments were delivered FAZAL ALI, J. These two criminal appeals are directed against a judgment dated 27th February 1979 of the Sessions Judge, Delhi by which the accused hereinafter referred to as the appellants have been companyvicted under various sections of the Penal Code and awarded sentences of various terms of imprisonment number exceeding two years which have been ordered to run companycurrently in addition to fines.
Alternatively, it was argued that some of the provisions of the Act did number at all apply to the appellants and the transfer of the appeals from the High Court to this Court was number legal.
The learned Sessions Judge has given full and companyplete details of the prosecution case against the appellants and has divided the allegations against them in several parts.
The reasons for the said order have been given by us which would form part of this judgment.
A. 494/79.
Meanwhile, the Special Courts Act of 1979 came into force and by virtue of a declaration made under s. 7 of the said Act.,
340/1978.
The Special Courts Act No.
On the other hand, an appeal to the Supreme Court is governed by s. 11 1 of the Act which runs thus 11.
A. 492/79.
As the learned Sessions Judge has given all the necessary details of the prosecution case against the appellants, it is number necessary for us to give all the facts but we propose to give a birds eye view of the sub stratum of the allegations on the basis of which the appellants have been companyvicted, dwelling particularly on those aspects which merit serious companysideration.
1979, the State also filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court for enhancement of the sentences.
L. Arora, K. G. Bhatat, Harish Gulati and D. Goburdhan for the Respondent No.
493 494/79.
The appellants have raised a number of preliminary objections relating to the companystitutional validity of the Act and various provisions thereof on several grounds including the companytravention of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
If the appeal is filed before the Supreme Court or is transferred thereto, the accused becomes entitled to a hearing of his case by the highest companyrt in the companyntry both on facts and on law and thus gets a far greater advantage than a right to move the Court for grant of special leave which may or may number be granted, it being a matter of discretion to be exercised by the Supreme Court.
By an order dated December 5, 1979, we disposed of the companystitutional points which were in the nature of preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals and overruled these objections.
L. Arora, K. G. Bhagat, Harish Gulati, Madan Bhatia and D. Goburdhan for the Appellant in Crl.
PW 1/D. On the 23rd of June 1975, a numberice was issued by the Ministry of Information Broadcasting to PW 1, Amrit Nahata, to show cause why certification to the film be number refused.
The companyrespondence in this regard is to be found in the file Ext.
A similar arrangement was made on the 18th of November 1975, when watchman Om Prakash, PW 31 changed places with watchman Ramdular and went over from A the 3rd to the 2nd shift 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. As it is, the 15th and the 18th of November 1975, were the only two days in the month on which watchman Om Prakash, PW 31 was on duty during the second shift as a special arrangement.
PW 4/A to PW 4/C. The file Ext.
On this, there does number appear to be any clear evidence and even the Sessions Judge has based his findings largely on speculation.
It was also alleged by the prosecution.
In his statement before the police, the witness did number state that PW 61, C. K. Sharma had told him that the saaman of Minister Saheb emphasis being on Minister Saheb was to be transferred to the dicky of the staff car.
About 25 damaged locks were companylected.
The film was viewed on April 24, 1975 be an Examining Committee of the Board and while three Members were of the opinion that certificate for exhibition, with drastic cuts should be given, another Member and Mr. N. S. Thapa, the Chairman disagreed with the opinion of their companyleagues and accordingly referred the matter to the Revising Committee.
R. Mridul, Rajinder Singh, O. P. Sharma, R. C. Bhatia and Vivek Tankha for the Appellant in Crl.
Even Khandpur, PW 4, who has fully supported the prosecution has number said anything in his evidence to indicate that PW2 had said that the materials should be carefully and companyfidentially companylected and sent to Delhi.
22 of 1979 and hereinafter to be referred to as the Act was passed by Parliament and received the assent of the President on 16th May 1979.
To begin with, L. Dayal, PW 2, who was then attached to A 1 as Joint Secretary Films states that on 6 11 1975 A 1 told him in the presence of Tripathi, PW 57, that A 1 had decided to keep all material relating to the film in his A 1s personal custody, that detailed arrangements for the delivery of the material would be made by A 1s personal staff and that the work had to be done by a responsible officer.
Sometime thereafter, PW 2, L. Dayal, took over as Joint Secretary Films Division in place of Mr. Murshed.
On the same day the approver directed his assistant named Kanwar Singh Yadav, PW 32 to meet the approver in the Maruti Complex at 9.00 p.m. along with watchman .
Kanwar Singh Yadav told me that Sanjay Gandhi had asked him to scrap the trunks and cans and to dispose them off.
Of burning companyld have taken place on the night of the 15th of November or on that of the 18th of November 1975, and on numberother date.
However, neither Tripathi number Ghose supports PW 2 on the point that he had asked Khandpur to companylect the.
Kanwar Singh Yadav and he told me about that.
The party of three opened the store and found lying therein the thirteen boxes companytaining the film material.
This appears to US to be the main reason why A l 11 directed that these materials may be sent from Bombay to Delhi.
PW 4/E was labelled as Confidential and shows that the film material was sent to the ministry of information Broadcasting in November 1975.
On July 5, 1975, in pursuance of the decision taken by the Central Government, the Coordination Committee directed seizure of the film and that its negatives, positives and all other materials relating to it be taken in the custody of the Central Government vide Ext.
After the 23rd November, 1975, Khedkar PW 3, on his showing, went away on leave.
The witness then goes on to state that he passed the order Ext.
I also told him that I had informed Shri Burney accordingly.
This file pertains to the film materials of Kissa Kursi Kaa.
Looking at us, namely, myself and V. S. Tripathi and Shri Khandpur, Shri Dayal generally enquired where.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the positive prints of the film were transferred from the Auditorium to the personal custody of A 1 or that the said transfer was done in accordance with his instruction or to his knowledge.
Taking the evidence of PW 17 and PW 33 as also PW 18, Bhawani Singh at its face value, numberconnection between A 1 and the transfer of the film has, been established.
therefore, placed on the evidence of PW 5, Kane to show that when he reached Delhi along with the film material, Tripathi was there to receive the same.
It is number disputed that Tripathi was number known to PW S, Kane, before the 10th and that by the time the witness saw him at the New Delhi Railway Station he had seen him only once in Bombay.
Both these orders were approved by the Minister which had to be done in companysequence of the decision taken by the Government.
Kanwar Singh Yadav, PW 32 met the approver at 9.30 p.m. They reached the factory gate where watchman om Prakash PW 31 was waiting for them.
The then Minister of I B, gave instructions to Shri L. Dayal, Jt.
In pursuance of this order, the Bombay police seized the entire film on 1 8 1975 and deposited the same in the godown of the Board.
Finally, on the 11th of July 1975, PW 6, Murshed, passed an order that numbercertification was to be given to the film for public exhibition which was followed by a letter dated July 11, 1975, forfeiting the film to the Government.
