The judgment establishes that possession and intended sale of obscene material, as defined under IPC Section 292(2)(a) and Section 3(1)(b) of the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956, constitute punishable offences.

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2014 in Crl.A.No.161 of 2013 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kottayam confirming the conviction entered against and the sentence imposed on, the revision petitioner as per judgment dated 26.4.2013 in C.C.No.614 of 2009 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. The revisionist was tried for offences punishable under Section 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(b) of the Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for both the offences and for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. For the conviction under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentence of imprisonment for the said offences were ordered to be run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.161 of 2013. The appellate court found the contentions raised by the revision petitioner/appellant as meritless and that no ground whatsoever was found established to interfere with the conviction as also the sentence. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the conviction as also the sentence. As stated earlier, this revision petition is filed against the said judgment.

2. The case of the prosecution, in succinct, is as follows:-

On 28.8.2009 at about 2.30 p.m. the revision petitioner was found in possession of 4 CDs containing blue films which would tend to corrupt young persons, to sale, at the north-eastern corner of Ayarkunnam private bus stand in Ayarkunnam Village. Ext.P3 F.I.R. was registered on 28.8.2009 and after investigation final report alleging commission of the aforesaid offences was filed against the revision petitioner. Subsequently, cognizance of the aforesaid offences was taken and it was taken on file and registered as C.C.No.614 of 2009. To prove the charge against the revision petitioner prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 series of CDs were also identified. After closing the prosecution evidence the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. However, he has not adduced any defence evidence, either oral or documentary. On evaluation of the evidence on record the trial court arrived at the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge for the aforesaid offences against the revision petitioner and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. As noticed hereinbefore, the conviction as also the sentence were confirmed by the appellate court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the conclusions and findings of the courts below are nothing but an outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence. Evidently, in this case, the courts below entered conviction against the revision petitioner concurrently under Sections 292(2)(a) of IPC and Section 3(1) (b) of the Act. In such circumstances, the scope for an interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is limited. True that, still, interference is possible and permissible in case the revision petitioner succeeds in proving that he was convicted and sentenced solely because of utter, perverse appreciation of evidence on record. An interference is also possible in case the revision petitioner succeeds in proving that the conclusions and findings of the courts below are absolutely against the weight of the evidence or that an incurable error causing failure of justice