Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.67 of 2007 dated 29.10.2008 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur as modified the sentence passed in C.C.No.285 of 2007 dated 20.6.2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2189 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.285 of 2005 dated 20.6.2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur.

IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2195 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Judgment and sentence passed in Crl.Appeal No.67 of 2007 dated 29.10.2008 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur as modified the conviction in CC.No. 285 of 2007 dated 20.6.2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur and consequently release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C.

The Court made the following Order:

The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court against the present petitioner whereby the petitioner/accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 292 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Brief fact of the prosecution case:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur I Town Police Station (PW.3), on receiving credible information on 03.04.2005, secured the presence of mediators/PWs.1 and 2, and with his staff proceeded to Shutter Bunk situated in front of K.M.K. Diagnostic Center, Kamala Nagar, Anantapur and found the accused in possession of six blue film compact discs and those discs were seized under seizure list in presence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 sent his constable PC 401 to bring a television set and D.V.D.player, then Sub-Inspector of Police exhibited the above six compact discs and found that they are blue film compact discs. Hence, the petitioner was arrested. Charge was framed against the petitioner under Sections 292 and 293 IPC. During trial, prosecution has produced two mediators as PWs.1 and 2 and Investigation Officer (PW.3). After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner from charge under Section 293 IPC but convicted him under Section 292 IPC. The same order was challenged before the appellate Court. The appeal was dismissed confirming the order. Hence, the present criminal revision.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

The impugned order of conviction and sentence is purely illegal and is liable to be set aside. PWs.1 and 2 are mediators and they did not support prosecution case but the solitary witness of investigating officer against the petitioner is not sustainable. He again submitted that prosecution has filed cases on the basis of wrong information. The petitioner is not guilty for the offence as alleged he has been falsely implicated in this case. PWs.1 and 2 are stock witnesses they are shown as witnesses in other cases on behalf of the prosecution. The alleged place of offence is a busy locality and other persons may have there. No independent witness is not supported the prosecution case. The observation of the Trial Court and Appellate Court is illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

The issue was raised before the learned