1999 Supreme(Ker) 230

Judges : K.V.SANKARANARAYANAN
Ramesh Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.C.No.2676 of 1999
Decided On : 07/08/1999
Advocates Appeared :
S.R. Manoj For Petitioners Public Prosecutor (CM. Suresh Babu) For Respondent

The acts alleged in the charge do not constitute an offence under sub-s.(2) (a) of S.292 IPC as there is no allegation that the blue film was sold, let on hire, distributed or publicly exhibited. The film was being viewed only by accused 2 and 3 from the residence of the 1st accused. The petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence.

Headnote:

Obscenity - S.292 IPC

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners are accused persons in C.C. No. 47/99 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalapuzha. It is a case charged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Punnapra alleging an offence under S.292(2)(a) IPC. The allegation is that on 14.7.1998 night, the first accused was seen exhibiting a blue film and accused 2 and 3 were viewing it from the drawing room of 1st accused's residence in Ward No. II of Ambalapuzha Panchayat. It is stated that CW. 8, the Sub Inspector of Police got information that the first accused was exhibiting blue films in his residence and conducted a raid in the house. He took into custody the films and the VCP and TV set used for the purpose. The prayer in this petition is to quash the complaint. It is submitted for the petitioners that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute an offence under S.292 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

As seen above, the allegation itself is that the film was exhibited in the residence of the 1st accused. Accused 2 and 3 were the only viewers. In order to constitute an offence under S.292(2)(a) IPC., it must be a case where the obscene object was sold, let on hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or put into circulation. Production or possession of the object for any of the abovesaid purposes will also constitute an offence. Here, there is no allegation that the blue film was sold, let on hire or distributed or publicly exhibited. As noted above, the film was being viewed only by accused 2 and 3 from the residence of the 1st accused. There is no allegation that the film was produced by any of the petitioners for purposes of distribution or circulation also. So, the acts alleged in the charge do not constitute an offence under sub-s.(2) (a) of S.292 IPC. If the prosecution had succeeded in finding the source of the film, possibly, the producer or in case it was sold or distributed, such person who sold, distributed or put the film on circulation could have been prosecuted. That is not the case here. There is no scope for prosecuting the petitioners for the abovesaid offence. The charge is liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The acts alleged in the charge do not constitute an offence under sub-s.(2) (a) of S.292 IPC as there is no allegation that the blue film was sold, let on hire, distributed or publicly exhibited. The film was being viewed only by accused 2 and 3 from the residence of the 1st accused. The petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence.

Result: The petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 47/99 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalapuzha are hereby quashed.