CHANDRA PRAKASH @ CHANDU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. miscellaneous petition owes its origin in the order dated Feb. 25, 1997 of the learned Special Judge ST/SC (prevention of Atrocities) cases, Jaipur whereby the order framing charge under section 292 Penal Code of the ACJM No. 5 Jaipur City against the accused petitioner was confirmed.

(2.) Brief resumes of the fact is that the petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 220/94 registered at police station kotwali Jaipur. During the course of investigation when the residential house of the petitioner was searched, five video cassettes were found in the home which were taken into custody. It is alleged that when those cassettes were displayed on the VCR, they were found containing absence photographs. Consequently, Investigating Officer seized the said cassettes vide regular seizure memo in June, 1994. Hardayal Singh SHO lodged a written report at Jawahar Nagar PS Jaipur under section 292 Penal Code and a case, section 7 of Cinematography Act, was registered. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the learned Judl. Magistrate, Jaipur framed charges under section 292 Penal Code and 7 of Cinematography Act against the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner assailed the findings by filing the revision petition and the learned revisional court which affirmed the charge under section 292 IPC. discharged the accused petitioner under 7 of Cinematography Act. Mr V.R. Bajwa learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed the impugned charge under section 292 Penal Code is totally misconceived. Both the courts below failed to appreciate that the absence of basic ingredients no constituting the offence under section 292 IPC. The video cassettes were not found in Exclusive possession of the accused petitioner. So also there is complete lack of material of evidence to spell out the purpose for passing the disputed cassettes. Unless there is a cogent evidence on record disclosing the specific purpose for which obscene article were held the offence under section 292 Penal Code cannot be invoked. There is complete lack of evidence to suggest much less to prove that cassettes were held for the purpose of selling or letting on hire on for distributing or publically exhibiting or putting the same in circulation. Reliance was place on Mohan Gupta Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1990 (2) Recent Criminal Reporter page 53 .

(3.) On the order hand Mr. M.L. Goel learned PP contended that there is sufficient material on record to ex-facie prove the offence under section 292 IPC. Learned PP further contended that at the stage of framing charge the statement of witnesses are not to be meticulously examined.