GITA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 22.2.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan Camp at Nalagarh in Case No. 7 FTN/10 of 2005/2004 affirming judgment dated 8.11.2004 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh in Criminal Case No. 16/2 of 2002 has been assailed in this revision. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced under Section 292 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 7 of Cinematograph Act, each petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 292 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/ -, under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, each petitioner has been ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - each. In default of payment of fine, each petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.12.2001 Chaman Lal, SHO, H.C. Jagat Singh and C. Jaswant Singh were patrolling at Sai Road, Baddi. A secret information was received that in Dhawan Video Hall, Sai Road petitioner No.1 and his servant petitioner No.2 were showing blue film to young men. A raiding party was constituted by associating Man Singh, Munna Ram and Parkash. The party raided Dhawan Video Hall and petitioners were found exhibiting/displaying blue film to about 15 viewers in the hall.

(3.) THE petitioners were charged for offences punishable under Section 292 IPC and Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses. The statements of petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioners denied the prosecution case but admitted that petitioner No. 1 was running Dhawan Video Hall and petitioner No.2 was servant working with petitioner No.1 on 7.12.2001. It has been alleged that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case in connivance with Shanti Cinema Hall. In the beginning the petitioners desired to lead defence evidence but ultimately opted not to lead defence evidence. On completion of trial, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 8.11.2004 convicted and sentenced the petitioners as noticed above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 22.2.2006 affirmed the judgment dated 8.11.2004, hence the petitioners have come in appeal.