The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 292, IPC, regarding the definition of obscene material, actions constituting an offense, and the purpose of preventing circulation or sale of obscene literature.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Having been convicted under Section 292, IPC, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jorhat in G. R. Case No. 486/2000 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to undergo Section I for another 2 months and being unsuccessful in Criminal Appeal No. 35/01, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, vide judgment and order dated 11-12-2001 affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by the accused petitioner by filing this Criminal Revision.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. The prosecution story leading to the conviction of the accused-petitioner, inter alia, is that PW-3, Sri Manik Goswami, Sub-Inspector of Jorhat Sadar P.S. while was on patrolling duty on 28-6-2000, entered into the shop of the accused-petitioner under the name and style of "Santosh Book Stall" at Garali, Jorhat, wherein he found that the owner of the shop, the accused-petitioner, kept for the purpose of sale a lot of obscene books written in Assamese, Bengali, Hindi and English, kept in exposed state and seized the obscene books having found prima facie committed an offence under Section 292, IPC by him. The police filed charge sheet against accused-petitioner after the investigation under Section 292, IPC and the accused-petitioner was sent for trial.

4. On receipt of the case records and on appearance of the accused-petitioner, the learned trial Court having found prima facie case against the accused-petitioner framed charge against him under Section 292, IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined altogether three witnesses and exhibited the seized books, whereas the defence adduced none. After closure of the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. pointing out the circumstances that appeared against him. The defence plea is total denial. The defence also denied the seizure of the books from him and that he has no book stall by the name "Santosh Book Stall". After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court having found that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge under Section 292, Cr. P.C, against the petitioner, the accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another two months vide judgment and order dated 4-6-2001.

6. The accused-petitioner challenged the said judgment and conviction before the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in CA No. 35/2001. The learned appellate Court also independently considered the evidence and materials on record and after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 11-12-2001, which gives rise to the present revision petition.

7. Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no cogent and reliable materials and evidence on record to attract conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 292, IPC. It is further submitted that PW-3 having lodged the FIR and he having been conducted the investigation, it would not be safe to rely the same in support of the conviction. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below not having specifically mentioned the particular paragraphs of the obscene books, the conclusion that the books seized were obscene is unjust and improper. In support of his submission Mr. Thakur relies on the following decisions rendered in 1986 CriLJ 24 Samaresh Bose and Anr. v. Amal Mitra and Anr. and 1995 CriLJ 3988 Megha Singh v. State of Haryana.

Mr. Munir, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-petitioner beyond