The subject matter of the revision is obscenity on the silver screen and the interesting question that arises for decision is whether the prosecution, in order to establish the offence under Sec. 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code should produce the entire film exhibited during the particular show in a theatre or is it sufficient if the objectionable/obscene parts of the film alone is produced ad marked as material object after detaching the same from the censored print of the film which was to be exhibited to the public in the theatre on the particular day?

2. The prosecution case is that as per the instructions from the Superintendent of Police, Kannur, P.W.3, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Records Bureau, Kannur, went over to the "Prakash Theatre", Valapattanam, Kannur, on 13-12-1999. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the Manager, Projector Operator and Assistant Projector Operator respectively of the said theatre. A Tamil film by name "Inaye Thedava" was supposed to be exhibited there on that day. Just before 1 p.m. when the interval in respect of the noon show of the said film was to take place, suddenly obscene scenes appeared in the screen. As soon as the screening of the objectionable part was over, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, accompanied by other members of his party, who were inside the theatre in mufti, went over to the projection room and seized the portions of the film which related to the obscene parts.

3. Offence under Sec.7(1)(b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 was also alleged in the charge sheet presented by the police as also in the charge framed by the court. However after trial and based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 and Exts.P1 to P8, the accused were acquitted of that offence on the ground that there was dearth of evidence to show that the seized parts viz., M.O.1 was not part of the censored version. To come to the said conclusion, the court took into account the reply of the Censor Board to the effect that it would be able to give a certificate on the aspect whether M.O.1 was part of the censored version only if the entire print relating to "Inaye Thedava" was made available for comparison. For convicting the accused under Sec.292 (2)(a)of the IPC, the court, however, relied on Ext. C1 minutes recorded by itself after viewing the exhibition of the objectionable part in another theatre.

4. Mr. M. Ramesh Chander, who appeared for the revision petitioners, submitted that for the very same reasons which prompted the trial court to acquit the accused in respect of the offence under Sec. 7 (1)(b) of the cinematograph Act, the court should have acquitted the accused in respect of the offence under Sec. 292 (2)(a) of the IPC also. In this regard the highlighted fact that immunity from prosecution is available to the exhibitor of the film under the proviso to Sec. 5-A of the Cinematograph Act and that in view of this position the prosecution can succeed in bringing home guilt for the offence contemplated in Sec. 292(2)(a) of the IPC only if it is established through authentic evidence that M.O. 1 did not form part of the censored version. P.W.3, having failed to seize the entire print used for exhibition the film "Inaye Thedava" for eventual transmission to the Censor Board for getting the certificate that it was not part of the film that was approved by the Board, there was no question of convicting the accused for the said offence. The counsel further submitted that this aspect of the matter could not be highlighted before the trial court or before the Court to Sessions, Thalaserry, which heard Criminal Appeal No. 314/93; but, nevertheless, the question has to be decided by this Court considering the fact that it is a question of law.

5. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the offence under Sec. 292(2)(a) of the IPC is independent of the provisions in the Cinematograph Act and once the court was convinced, as it did, on finding objectionable materials as noted in Ext. C1, t