ORDER :

Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.6.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2015, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 7.5.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawagarh in Criminal Case No. 371 of 2013 convicting and sentencing each of the Applicants/accused as under:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Jamunabai (PW5), who was a friend of Complainant Terasbai Sahu (PW1), went to the computer shop of Applicant No. 2/accused Nitesh Kumar Sahu for downloading of film on her mobile phone. Allegedly, accused Nitesh, while downloading the film, also downloaded obscene photos of Complainant Terasbai and asked Jamunabai to see those photos. Jamunabai, after returning home, saw those photos, which were downloaded by accused Nitesh. She disclosed this fact to Complainant Terasbai. Thereafter, Terasbai went to accused Nitesh and asked about the same from him. Allegedly, Nitesh threatened her of life. Further story of the prosecution is that Applicant No. 1/accused Kedarnath Kashyap had also kept the obscene photos of Complainant Terasbai in his mobile phone and he used to circulate/send the same to the persons contacting for it. A report was lodged by Terasbai on 12.3.2013. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Applicants/accused before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawagarh.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The Applicants/accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness has been examined in their defence.

4. After trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted and sentenced the Applicants/accused as mentioned in the first paragraph of this order. The Appellate Court has also affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

5. Shri Ravindra Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants/accused submitted that there is nothing on record on the basis of which it could be established that any of the Applicants published or transmitted obscene photos of the Complainant through any electronic form. Though on being examined obscene photos of the Complainant were found in the mobile phones of Applicant No. 1 Kedarnath and Jamunabai (PW5) and in the hard disc of the computer of Applicant No. 2 Nitesh, there is no evidence on record to establish that the obscene photos were published or transmitted by any of the Applicants. Hence, no offence is proved against the Applicants, but the Courts below have wrongly convicted the Applicants.

6. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the Respondent/State supported the impugned judgment.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of the Courts below with due care.

8. In Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2017 SC 150, it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under:

"32. The aforesaid passage clearly shows that if legislative intendment is discernible that a latter enactment shall prevail, the same is to be interpreted in accord with the said intention. We have already referred to the scheme of the IT Act a