HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No. 1705 of 2004 O R D E R : Two accused faced trial in CC No.155 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajole, East Godavari District. The learned trial Judge found A-1 not guilty and discharged him of the offence alleged, namely the offence u/sec.292 IPC. He however, found A-2 guilty and convicted him for the offence u/Sec.292 IPC. A-2 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.1000/- with appropriate default sentence. A-2 preferred appeal before the VIII Addl.Sessions Court, Amalapuram. Through the impugned Judgment, the learned VIII Addl.Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. He confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence. Aggrieved by the same, A-2 preferred the present revision. 2. It is the case of A-2 that during the small hours i.e, at about 2.00 a.m. on 10.8.2001 police conducted raid on room No.105, Ajanta lodge, Tatipaka village within the jurisdiction of Rajole. The police party found A-1 witnessing a blue film, all alone in the room. A-1 informed PW-4, SI of police, that he brought the cassette containing the blue film from the shop of A-2. On the basis of the confession/statement of A-1, police raided the shop of A-2 at about 8.30 a.m. on the same day i.e, on 10.8.2001. About 23 video cassettes containing blue films were found and seized from his shop under Ex-P2 mahazar in the presence of PW-1. It is therefore, alleged that A-1 and A-2 were guilty of the offence u/Sec.292 IPC. 3. Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed that u/Sec.292 IPC, mere possession of blue film would not be an offence unless the possession of the blue film is with a view to distribute the same to the public. He also pointed out that the two staff members of the lodge where A- 1 was found witnessing the blue film (P.Ws.2 and 3) did not support the prosecution story. I am afraid that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is primarily irrelevant for the purpose of the present case where the main offence is aimed against A-2, who is the revision petitioner (and not against A-1). The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 is that A-2 produced as many as 23 blue film cassettes from in the shop of A-2 when P.W.4 and his party raided the shop of A-2. I am satisfied from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 that the offence u/sec.292 IPC is made out beyond reasonable doubt so far as A-2 is concerned. 4. Regarding the quantum of sentence, it may be recalled that the trial court sentenced A-2 to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. It is the case of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-2 that the petitioner is a petty cloth merchant and that A-2 was not involved in the business of distribution of video films muchless video blue films. Further he pointed out that the revision petitioner was 45 years old by the date of the incident in the year 2001. The revision petitioner consequently, is aged about 55 years old. After his release by way of suspension of the sentence recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court, it would appear that the revision petitioner/ A-2 was not involved in any case of similar nature. Taking these factors into consideration, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. 5. It would appear that the petitioner was in Jail for about a week. I consider that it would be just and appropriate to confine the imprisonment to the imprisonment already undergone by the revision petitioner. The sentence of fine as recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court however, deserves to be maintained. 6. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of. S o far as the conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is concerned, it is found that the prosecution has established the guilt of the revision petitioner/A-2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Sec.292 IPC. Inasmuch as the revision relates to the sentence, the sentence of fine recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is maintained. The order as to the disposal of the material objects is also maintained. However, so far as the imprisonment of three months recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by A-2/Revision Petitioner is found to be sufficient and is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. The revision is ordered accordingly. The bail bonds of the revision petitioner stand discharged. ______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt. 01-07-2011 Mjl/*