THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.547 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein (Accused No.1) and two others were tried by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, in C.C.No.77 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 292 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-8 were marked. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein and another by filing Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, who by his judgment, dated 23.03.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, accused No.1 approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. The brief facts of the case are that A-1 was the Manager-cum-Care taker of Rajendra Theatre, Chirala, A- 2 is the Projector Operator and A-3 was the producer of the film “Looking Eyes” for telugu edition on behalf of his Siva Sakthi Pictures, Vijayawada. While so, A-3 supplied the said dubbing film to be exhibited in Rajendra Theatre from 04.01.1997. A-1 and A-2 were exhibiting the said film. On 05.01.1997, on information that the said film contains most obscene pictures, P.W-5 took P.W.3 and L.W-12 to the said Theatre as mediators and surprised the cinema hall and found that A-1 and A-2 were exhibiting the said movie and as such arrested them and seized 4 cans of film under the cover of mahazar. Later, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he submitted that the petitioner herein was arrested on the date of the incident and two days later he was released on bail and subsequently, after dismissal of the Criminal appeal, he was again taken into custody and only by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 25.03.2004, he was released from the jail and as such, he requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for quite some time. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record and found that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Hence, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about five days, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-A-1 by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 20th January 2011 dr