Criminal Writ Petition No. 731 of 2013

30th September, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. A.R. DEVAKATE
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. S.D. SHELKE

Cases Cited:
Jagdish Chavla and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cri.L.J. 2562 [Para 7]
V. Sundarrajan Vs. State, Cri.P.C. No.376/1978, Dt.28/11/1979 [Para 7]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- The petitioner is the accused no.2 in R.C.C. No. 833 of 2011 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. The case arose out of C.R. No. 3032/2011 in respect of offences punishable under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), section 293 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC, as also offences punishable under section 66A and section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and four others, alleging commission of the aforesaid offences by them. Contending that the charge against him was groundless, the petitioner made an application for discharge, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed allowed the application only partly, by discharging the petitioner with respect to the offence punishable under section 293 of IPC. The learned Magistrate was of the view that so far as offence punishable under section 292 of IPC was concerned, there were grounds for proceeding against the petitioner, and that, a trial in respect of the alleged offence was necessary.

The petitioner was not satisfied with the limited success, which he had before the Magistrate, and approached the Court of Sessions by filing revision application. The learned Sessions Judge, Beed dismissed the said revision application.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the inherent powers of this Court saved by section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. I have heard Mr. A.R. Devakate, the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard Mrs. S.D. Shelke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the Petition and the annexures thereto. I have also gone through the case diary, which the Investigating Officer was called upon to produce.

3. The case against the petitioner and the other accused arose pursuant to the First Information Report dated 23.09.2011 lodged by Sayyed Ali Sayyed Umar, Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Beed City Police Station at the material time. As per the First Information Report, on 23.09.2011 at about 19 hours while the First Informant was present at the Police Station, he received secrete information that the owner and employee of Sagar Mobile Shoppee, Subhash road, was circulating an Obscene Video Clip showing sexual intercourse between one Ramesh Bidve (accused no.1) and one Smt. Aruna (accused no.4). On receipt of this information, the police party went to Sagar Shoppee, where Jeevan Band i.e. the petitioner who is the owner thereof and his servant Rajendra were present. When inquires were made with them, they were frightened and started giving evasive replies. Therefore, the Mobile Telephone Instrument of the petitioner was checked, when an Obscene Video Clip showing intercourse between a man and woman was found to be stored therein. When inquiries were made with the servant Rajendra (accused no.3), he admitted that about two and half years prior one Ramesh Bidve (accused no.1) had brought his Mobile Telephone for repairs to the shop of the petitioner, and that, at that time the petitioner and the said Rajendra had got the said Obscene Video Clip copied therefrom and stored the same in the Mobile Telephone Instrument of the petitioner. That, the telephone number of Ramesh Bidve was obtained from the petitioner and said Rajendra (accused no.3); and Ramesh Bidve was called to the police station. He then admitted that the said Video Clip had been prepared by him and his beloved Smt. Aruna (accused no.4) in the house of one Smt. Shelke (accused no.5) and was stored in the mobile telephone instrument, and that, thereafter the mobile telephone instrument had been given in the shop of the petitioner for repairing. That, at that time, the petitioner had got the said Obscene Video Clip copied and had circulated the same to the several persons.

4. It is contended by Mr. A.R. Devkate, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no material in the charge-sheet to show that the petitioner had circulated the said Obscene Video Clip to anyone. He submitted that even otherwise that the applicant's mobile telephone contained an Obscene Video Clip was itself not indicated by any material, except the statements of the First Informant and other members of the police party only. It is submitted that in any case, even if the petitioner is held to be found in possession of Obscene Video Clip stored in his mobile telephone instrument, still, that, by itself, would not amount to an offence punishable under section 292 of IPC. It is submitted that the Magistrate ought to have discharged the petitioner with respect to the offence punishable under section 292 of IPC also.

5. I have carefully gone through the entire material in the charge - sheet. Section 292 of IPC reads as under :-

"292. Sale, etc., of obscene books etc. - (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (wherever it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

(2) Whoever -

(a) 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, make produces or has in possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section.

Shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees."

6. It is clear that the offence takes place, if some one lets to hire, distribution, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or he for the purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition, makes produces or keeps in possession any obscene books pamphlet, drawing etc. A bare reading of the relevant provisions makes it clear that mere possession of obscene book or object is not an offence under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 292 of IPC. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the petitioner was found circulating the said Obscene Video Clip. As a matter of fact there is no material whatsoever that it was at all circulated by anyone. Investigation has not resulted in finding out any person to whom the said Obscene Video Clip was circulated. There is, therefore, nothing to show that the Obscene Video Clip alleged to be found/stored in the mobile telephone instrument of the petitioner, had been kept by him in his possession for the purpose of sale, hire, distribution or public exhibition or circulation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish Chavla and others V/s State of Rajasthan (1999 Cri.L.J. 2562), wherein the question as to what are the ingredients of offence punishable under section 292 of IPC had arisen. The learned Single Judge, while examining this aspect, concluded, after referring to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Sundarrajan V/S State (Cri.P.C. No. 376 of 1978) decided on 28.11.1979, as follows:-

".......... the possession of the obscene object is punishable U/s 292, IPC if the possession is for the purpose of sale, hire, distribution public exhibition or circulation. If the obscene object is kept in a house and is not for sale, hire, public exhibition or circulation, the accused cannot be charged u/s 292, IPC. It is not the case for prosecution that the case falls under clause (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (2). Rather it was frankly conceded at the time of arguments that the case does not fall in Clauses (b), (c), (d) or (e)."

I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge.

8. There is no claim that the case of the prosecution falls under clauses (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (2) or, any of them. Same was the case in respect of the matter before the Rajasthan High Court, in the aforesaid case.

9. I have examined the reasoning of the learned Magistrate, and that of the learned Sessions Judge in holding that no case for discharge of the petitioner with respect to the offence punishable under section 292 of the IPC was made out.

10. The reasoning of the Magistrate is as under :

"Accused no.2 runs the Sagar Mobile Shopy. There is every possibility of circulating the said clip to others through Blue-tooth. The question arises as to why the accused No. 2 copied the said clip from the Mobile of accused No.1. What was his intention behind it cannot be ascertained at this stage. It requires a full fledged trial."

11. It appears that the aforesaid decision of the Rajasthan High Court was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, but he took a view that the observations made therein were not applicable to the case of the present applicant, because he was running a Mobile Shoppee, and that, how the obscene video clip had come in his Handset was required to be ascertained by a trial. This view is absolutely incorrect. The observations made by the Rajasthan High Court were fully applicable to the facts of the present case. There was no question of deciding the matter after having a trial, as the allegation against the petitioner was merely that he was found to be possessing an Obscene Video Clip, which allegation, by itself, did not constitute the offence punishable under section 292 of IPC. The Magistrate himself observed that why the accused no.2 had copied the Obscene Video Clip from the mobile of accused no.1 was not indicated and what was his intention behind it could not be ascertained from the material in the charge-sheet. When this was the position, the benefit of absence or lack of material attributing the requisite guilty intention to the applicant ought to have been given to the applicant and not to the prosecution. There may be some acts from which intention behind them can be prima facie ascertained. However, copying the Obscene Video Clip from the mobile telephone of another is not such an act. Such copying could be for personal viewing and not necessarily for circulation. This was particularly so because, the prosecution did not find out,- inspite of having investigated into the matter,-even one person to whom the said Obscene Video Clip had been circulated.

12. While dismissing the revision application against the order of the Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows:-

"Since he runs mobile handset shop, there is every possibility that he might have circulated that clip among his customers via Blue-tooth".

This approach is patently erroneous and contrary to law. When there was not even one person named in the charge-sheet to whom the clip had been circulated, - much less there was any statement of any such person in the charge-sheet - it was not permissible to infer such a thing to hold that the case for proceeding against the petitioner had been made out.

13. This is apart from the fact that, that the material indicating that any obscene video clip was stored in the mobile telephone instrument of the petitioner itself is not satisfactory.

14. When there was no evidence of the petitioner having circulated the obscene video clip to anyone and when there was nothing to show that it had been stored by him for the purpose of circulating to his customers, clearly there were no grounds for proceeding against the petitioner with respect to the offence punishable under section 292 of IPC.

15. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, as also, the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed are patently incorrect. A prosecution which does not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged, cannot be permitted to be continued.

16. The Petition is allowed.

The prosecution of the petitioner, vide RCC No. 833/2011 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed is quashed.

The petitioner stands discharged.

17. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

Petition allowed.