(1.) VIDE order dated 27.09.2011, this Court has passed the following order: 1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment dated 17.09.2011, the petitioner was held guilty under Section 385 Cr.P.C. and vide order of sentence dated 24.09.2011 he was sentenced to undergo SI for one year and the fine of Rs.10,000/- Being aggrieved the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order before Sessions court. VIDE judgment dated 17.09.2011, ld. ASJ has modified the order passed by the ld. MM subject to the extent that if the petitioner deposits Rs.01 lakh only in that case imprisonment would be for 06 months.
(2.) VIDE this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2011. As per the allegation nude photographs of the complainant were sent firstly to one Parvej at Mumbai who alleged to be first fianc of the complainant and thereafter to one shop keeper Naved Irshad, who is neighbouring shopkeeper of the husband of the complainant, who further showed the photographs to the husband of the complainant.
(3.) LD. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court to the cross-examination of PW4 Naved and has submitted that the Court below has also gone wrong while recording that when he handed over the photographs to IO vide memo Ex.PW4/A, photographs were sealed by IO. On this score, record reveals that there is nothing in the above memo to show that the photographs were sealed in any manner after being seized.