HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.443 OF 2005 ORDER: The sole accused in C.C.No.28 of 2002 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, was prosecuted and tried for the offences under Sections 292, 294 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court had found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 292 (2) (a) IPC while acquitting him for the offence under Section 294 IPC and also for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, by the trial Court by its judgment dated 19.7.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction as passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2003 on the file of the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Parvathipuram and the said Court after considering the material on record and after hearing both sides, had dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 3.2.2005 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the accused. 2. Assailing the judgment of dismissal as passed by the appellate Court, the accused has preferred this revision inter alia on the following grounds: That both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective; that both the courts below failed to see that the ingredients of Section 292 (2) (a) IPC were not made out; that both the courts below ought to have seen that the procedure as prescribed under sub section 4 of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed while seizing MOs 1 to 8 since no independent witnesses were secured from the locality to act as mediators thereto, though, the business premises of the petitioner- accused is located in a busy commercial locality; that both the Courts ought to have seen that MOs 1 to 8 were seized on 10.2.2002 at 11.15 p.m., however, the said MOs were handed over to the S.H.O. of Salur P.S. on the next day at 5.30 p.m.; that both the courts failed to see that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 was not corroborated and that both the courts failed to see that the confession alleged to have been made by the petitioner-accused before the Police Officer was hit by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-2-2002 at about 11.15 p.m, PWs 1, 3 and 4, forming anti- goonda squad, on information, raided the premises of the petitioner-accused at Parameshwari Stereo Recording Centre at Kota Vidi, Salur town and seized MOs 1 to 8- computer disks from his possession under cover of Ex.P.1- panchanama. Finding such MOs to be indecent exposure of sexual intercourse, handed over to S.H.O., Salur P.S. Basing on which, case in Crime No.9 of 2002 was registered by Salur P.S. against the petitioner-accused under Section 292 (2) (a) IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Police, after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet into the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur and that on his pleading not guilty, the petitioner-accused was tried for the said offences. 4. The prosecution in support of its case had examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 and MOs 1 to 8 on its behalf, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner-accused. 5. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record, found the petitioner- accused guilty for the offence under Section 292 (2)(a) IPC and acquitted him for the offences under Section 294 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced for the offence charged with as has already been stated in Para No.1 supra. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has raised the self same grounds as he has raised in the revision case. He further submits that the petitioner-accused was in judicial custody for about 1 ½ months; that he was arrested on 3.2.2005 and he was granted bail on 18.3.2005 and that the petitioner-accused has already paid fine amount of Rs.2,000/- in the trial court itself. He also submits that since the incident alleged to have occurred in the year 2002, about 9 years back, and since the petitioner-accused has been repenting for what has happened, since he is a petty trader eking out his livelihood by running stereo recording shop, the sentence imposed on him, may appropriately be modified and/or reduced to a period he has already undergone, if this court confirms the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 7. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor supported the judgments of both courts below in imposing and confirming the conviction and sentence stating that possession of MOs 1 to 8- blue film computer discs is an offence and if they exhibited, it would have adverse impact on the society particularly the younger generation. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgements of both the courts below may not be interfered with by this Court. 8. After perusing the evidence and other material on record and having regard to the submissions made on both sides, it is to be seen that PWs 1 to 4 are official witnesses and their evidence goes to show that the petitioner-accused was in possession of blue film computer disks and that there is no discrepancy in their evidence. Further, their evidence corroborated the contents of Ex.P.1-occurance report. Therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside merely on the premise that it is not corroborated by any independent witness. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court for the offence under Section 292 (2) (a) IPC does not suffer from any infirmity. However, considering that offence had occurred about 9 years back and the petitioner-accused is stated to be repenting for what has happened and since he paid the fine amount, this court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment can be modified and/or reduced appropriately. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 292 (2) (a) IPC, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months is reduced to that of the period he has already undergone during the remand period, while maintaining the fine with default sentence. ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 07-04-2011 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.443 OF 2005 07-04-2011