The revision petitioners herein challenge the conviction and sentence against them in C.C.No.397 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi. The first revision petitioner is the Manager of a Film Exhibitor, and the second revision petitioner is his operator. On the basis of some secret information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pattambi, conducted a search at the theater by name “Mathilakam Cine Movies” at Pattambi, at about 12 noon on 07.02.2002, while the film, “Mayangunnamanassu” was being exhibited there. Finding some obscene and nude scenes being exhibited as part of the film, the Sub Inspector stopped the film exhibition there, and he seized the objectionable part of the film interpolated into the main film. The objectionable film seized by him was produced in court. After investigation, the police submitted final report against the two accused under S.292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code, and under S.7(a)(i) and (ii) of the Cinematograph Act (for short “the Act”) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi.

2. The two accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P8 documents in the trial court. The MO1 film spool of a short duration of 8 minutes containing objectionable nude scenes was also identified during trial.

3. The two accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under S.7(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act. No separate sentence was imposed under S.292(2)(a) I.P.C.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2008, the accused approached the Court of Session, Palakkad, with Crl.A. No. 602 of 2008. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Palakkad, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now the two accused are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

6. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the entire materials, I find that the conviction in this case under S.7(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act is unsustainable. The main issue is concerning a film spool of 8 minutes duration seized by the police from the theater. The Sub Inspector conducted search there while a particular film was being exhibited. The prosecution case is that a film spool containing obscene scenes, was seen interpolated into the certified film.

7. The revision petitioners claim the protection of the proviso to S.5A of the Act. S.5A of the Act provides that the Board constituted under the Act shall examine the film for which certificate is applied for, and if the Board finds no objectionable thing, the Board may grant certificate appropriately. Different categories are prescribed under S.5A of the Act. Depending upon the contents of the film, and the result of screening made by the Board, the Board can issue “U” certificate, or “UA” certificate, or “A” certificate, or “S” certificate. Anyway, it is for the Board to examine the whole film before issuing certificate. Being a cinema film it will contain different scenes, and in some cases there can even be obscene or objectionable scenes also. It is the function of the Board to examine the whole film, and take decision appropriately on the request for certificate. The proviso to S.5A of the Act provides that the applicant for certificate, or any distributor or exhibitor or any other person to whom the rights in the film have passed, shall not be liable for punishment under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in the film for which certificate has been granted under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of the Section. This is a case where the accused have obtained a ce