RAVI Vs. S I OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER (first accused) along with two others stood trial for offences punishable under S. 292 (2) (a) read with S. 34 I P C and S. 2 (a) and 3 (b) of Young Persons (Harmful Publication) Act. PETITIONER was convicted, while others were acquitted. Unsuccessful in appeal, petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence passed on him.

(2.) ON 23-7-83, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (PWB)alongwith PW6 -- Sub Inspector of Police, PW7 -- Probationary Sub Inspector of police, and PW2 -- Police Constable, raided the premises of petitioner, on information that obscene publications were printed and stocked for sale. They found several copies of magazines --'stunt' (New Year's Special Issue) and 'bharatha Dhwani' (MO 1 series)-as also MO 2 blocks, and seized these under ext. PI mahazar. Ext. P2 is the search memorandum, and Ext. P5 is the licence issued in the name of petitioner, by the Additional District Magistrate, ernakulam. The Publication contained obscene photographs and drawings of nude men and women in lewd postures. This, in brief, is the prosecution case. Courts below, relying on the evidence of PWs. 2, 6, 7 and 8, and Exts. P1, P2 and P5 found the charge.

(3.) BUT, counsel would submit that petitioner had no knowledge of what was being printed in the press, and that he was only getting material printed for monetary consideration. Petitioner himself had no such case. His case was one of denial, and it was not his case that he was printing material that others brought. That apart, it does not stand to reason that petitioner who "owned the press and was present there, was unaware of what was being printed in his press. Large quantities of printed matter was stocked in the premises. A like quantity was lying around, unbound. Large size cover pages printed in art paper carrying colour photographs, could not have escaped anybody's attention, and certainly not that of the person who owns the establishment and who must have been spending long hours therein, having regard to the normal course of events. It is unreasonable to think that some other person must have printed these, spending much time and using paper, material and stationery in the press. It will be the height of hazard to think that paid employees of petitioner would have embarked on such a large scale venture, without petitioner's knowledge or consent. Law cannot be oblivious of inferences, obvious to any reasonable person instructed in the ways of human affairs. In the facts of the case S. 292 cannot be interpreted to understand that petitioner did not have conscious possession of MOS 1 and 2. Possession in such large quantities, in commercial premises -- a printing press -- can only be "for purposes of sale, hire, distribution or circulation".