P.D. Rajan, J.

This revision petition is preferred by the 2nd accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.190/2000 of Sessions Judge, Thalassery. Four persons were charge sheeted in C.C. No.690/1999 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thlassery under section 3 and 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned Magistrate convicted the 2nd accused under section 3 and 6 of the Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default simple imprisonment for two months and acquitted A1, A3 and A4 thereunder. Against that, the 2nd accused preferred the above criminal appeal before Sessions Court, where the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this revision petition.

2. The charge against the accused is that on 29.3.1997 while Circle Inspector of Police and his party were conducting patrol duty, they found a cinema poster of an English film 'Return to Moon Junction', which was inscribed "4 shows in 'Liberty' from 28 onwards". The cinema poster exhibiting the figure of a naked woman was intended to depict a woman indecently and to denigrate public morality. Hence, he seized the poster and registered a case under section 3 and 6 of the Act. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P12. The seized posters were produced in the trial Court but not marked. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them, but they did not adduce any defence evidence.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that film was duly certified by the Censor Board under Part II of Cinematograph Act 1952, therefore, Section 3 and 6 of the Act are not applicable in this case. The seized poster was not marked in evidence in the trial Court, which shows that no such indecent representation of woman was found in the poster.

4. But, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the picture of a man caressing the breast of a naked lady itself was shown in a picture, which contained indecent representation of women.

5. According to Section 2(c) of the Act, "Indecent representation of women" means the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, denigrating, women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals. The oral evidence of PW3, C.I. of Thalassery shows that on 29.3.1997 at 12.30 noon, he was conducting patrol duty, at that time he found a cinema poster on the eastern wall of Prabha Talkies of Chirakkara, in which there was picture of a man caressing the bare breast of a lady and as he felt that poster contained indecent representation of a woman so as to denigrate her, immediately, he seized that poster and proceeded to the Liberty theater, where he found similar posters, then proceeded to the office of the Liberty theater, after preparing a search memorandum, he conducted a search inside the office and seized three posters from there, and reaching at the Thalassery Police Station, registered a crime. Ext.P3 is the FIR, Ext.P2 is the search memo, Ext.P1 is the seizure mahazar, Ext.P4 is the seizure mahazar prepared for seizure of cinema posture and Ext.P5 is the search list. Ext.P6 is the Form provided under section 3(2) of the Act. PW1, Head Constable supported the evidence of PW3. PW8 is the Sub Inspector, who conducted investigation and laid charge in the trial Court. In this context, I have examined the evidence of PW6, P.A. to the Municipal Secretary, who produced Ext.P7. PW7 is the U.D. Clerk, who produced Ext.P8 licence issued in Form-E.

6. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:

"Prohibition of Publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women.- No person shall produce or cause to be produced, sell,