IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1672 of 2003(A) --------------------------------------------------- CMP.3834/2003 IN CC.89/2001 of JFCM, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ARAVINDAN MANIKOTH, S/O.K.V.AMBU VAIDYAR, 44/00, KOVVAL PALLI, KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.APPL.9704/2003 IN CRRP 1672/2003 DISMISSED 21.7.2010 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1672 of 2003 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the first accused in C.C.No.89/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, filed C.M.P.No.3834/2003 to drop the case contending that in respect of the same offences, learned Magistrate had already tried the accused and acquitted them by Annexure-A3 judgment in C.C.No.767/2000. Learned Magistrate, under Annexure-A5 order, dismissed the petition. This revision is filed challenging Annexure-A5 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel pointed out that C.C.No. 767/2000 was also charged by the Sub Inspector of CRRP 1672/03 2 Police, Kasaragod for the offences under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act on the allegation that on 8.7.2000 at about 4 p.m., getting information Circle Inspector of Police conducted a search in the shop of the second accused therein at Old Bus Stand, Kasaragod and seized 148 copies of latest cinema magazine published by the petitioner and the case in C.C.No.89/2001 is also in respect of the same latest cinema magazine seized from a shop of the second accused in this case at New Bus Stand, Kasaragod at 6.30 p.m. on the same day. By Annexure-A3 judgment dated 31.3.2003, learned Magistrate found all the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, though no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 4 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. Annexure-A4 petition CRRP 1672/03 3 was filed under Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that as the accused were already convicted in C.C.No.767/2000, they cannot be tried again for the same offences in C.C.No. 89/2001. 4. Section 292(2)(a) of Indian Penal Code provides that whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, shall be punished as provided therein. Therefore, if the accused in the two cases have sold or distributed or publicly exhibited any obscene book in the shops at Old Bus Stand, Kasaragod and New Bus Stand, Kasaragod, both are distinct offences. 5. Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides bar for trial of a person who was already CRRP 1672/03 4 convicted or acquitted for the same offence. Under sub-section (1), a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence, shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. 6. The bar provided under Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure is for trying a person for the same offence once the conviction or acquittal for the same offence is in force. When the offence which was tried in C.C.No.767/2000 is in respect of exhibition and publication of the latest cinema magazines, though of the same publication, in Old Bus Stand, Kasaragod, which were seized at about 4 p.m. by the Circle Inspector of Police, it cannot be said that trial of the accused in C.C.No.89/2001 CRRP 1672/03 5 for the same offence cannot be conducted, as they were tried in C.C.No.767/2000 for publishing and exhibiting the latest cinema magazines at New Bus Stand, Kasaragod. I cannot agree with the submission that for the reason that accused were already convicted for exhibition and publication of the latest cinema magazines, which were seized from the shop at Old Bus Stand, Kasaragod at about 4 p.m., they cannot be tried for the sale/exhibition/ publication of the latest cinema magazines in the shop at New Bus Stand, Kasaragod. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the dismissal of the petition under Annexure-A5 order. Petitioner is entitled to take up all the defence at the time of trial. Revision fails and it is dismissed. 21st July, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv