SANTHOSH Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2014 in Crl. A. No. 161 of 2013 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge -IV, Kottayam confirming the conviction entered against and the sentence imposed on, the revision petitioner as per judgment dated 26.4.2013 in C.C. No. 614 of 2009 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Kottayam. The revisionist was tried for offences punishable under Section 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(b) of the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for both the offences and for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. For the conviction under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentence of imprisonment for the said offences were ordered to be run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl. A. No. 161 of 2013. The appellate court found the contentions raised by the revision petitioner/appellant as meritless and that no ground whatsoever was found established to interfere with the conviction as also the sentence. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the conviction as also the sentence. As stated earlier, this revision petition is filed against the said judgment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in succinct, is as follows: - -

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the conclusions and findings of the courts below are nothing but an outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence. Evidently, in this case, the courts below entered conviction against the revision petitioner concurrently under Sections 292(2)(a) of IPC and Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. In such circumstances, the scope for an interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is limited. True that, still, interference is possible and permissible in case the revision petitioner succeeds in proving that he was convicted and sentenced solely because of utter, perverse appreciation of evidence on record. An interference is also possible in case the revision petitioner succeeds in proving that the conclusions and findings of the courts below are absolutely against the weight of the evidence or that an incurable error causing failure of justice has been committed. In the context of the contentions it is only apposite to scan the pleadings of the revision petitioner in the revision petition carefully, more particularly, ground (H) therein. Ground (H) would reveal that the revision petitioner is not disputing the fact that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that MO1 series of CDs were found from his possession. In this context it is relevant to refer to ground (H) which reads as follows: - -