HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1147 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against judgment delivered by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur in Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2002, dated 8.7.2004, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed while confirming judgment dated 16.10.2002 of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnuru in C.C. No. 6 of 2001. The case of the prosecution is as follows: A1 was the exhibitor and the A2 was the Manager of Sri Venkata Sitarama Picture Palace, Ponnur. On 4.12.2000, P.W.6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S. on receipt of credible information about the exhibition of a blue film in Sri Venkata Sitarama Picture Palace, Ponnur in second show went to the said theatre along with the Mandal Revenue Officer- Cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Ponnur and mediators, P.Ws. 3 and 4 and joined the spectators of the movie and ascertained that the blue film was being exhibited in the said theatre. Then they went into the cabin of the hall and traced the film reel in the cabin and got it exhibited through A1 and confirmed the same to be the one which was being exhibited on the screen and seized it in the presence of mediators and P.W.5, the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.P2, mediatornama. Basing on Ex.P2, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No. 220 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 292(2) of IPC. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police took up the investigation of the case and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners-A1, A2 and A3 (Ch. Santha Pushpavathi), but however, they deleted the name of Ch. Santha Pushpavathi, A3, who was the lease holder of the said theatre for the exhibition of the said movie. The petitioners were tried for the offences punishable under Section 292(2) of IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. On a consideration of the material available on record, the trial Court, found A1 and A2 guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 292(2) of IPC and accordingly convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks each, whereas challenging the same, A1 and A2 preferred the appeal before the IX Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur, which was dismissed and consequently the present revision is filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the prosecution failed to examine the spectators who were watching the movie at the relevant point of time, which is fatal. He further has submitted that except the public officials, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to prove the alleged offence. I have gone through the record. The prosecution placed good and acceptable evidence in order to establish the charge levelled against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2. P.W.1 booking clerk in the theatre turned hostile to the prosecution version and P.W.2 was not examined. P.W.1 must have done so because he was the employee of the theatre. P.Ws.3 to 6, mediators, the Mandal Revenue Officer and the investigating officer as the prosecution claims, spoke about the incident. Their evidence agrees with Ex.P2, mediatornama and there is no basis to show that a false case was foisted against A1 and A2. Hence, I hold that the charge levelled against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 is established. Learned counsel for the petitioners ultimately has pleaded to reduce the sentence imposed. The revision petitioners-A1 and A2 must have suffered since the date of registration of the case in 2001, by way of attending the Courts wasting lot of their valuable time and spending lot of expenditure. So, I am of the view that it is reasonable to reduce the sentence. Examining all the relevant circumstances, while confirming the conviction recorded against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 292(2)(a) of IPC, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one month imposed against them is reduced to 15 days keeping the fine clause in tact. The period of detention undergone by them shall be given as set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 28.7.2011 pnb