1. P. W. 6 Raghotham, the Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI on being authorised by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources and Culture Dept. authorising him to file the complaint, lodged the complaint against this petitioner under S. 26(2) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') S. 200, Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under S. 14(3) r/w S. 25(2) of the Act, on the allegation that when the CBI officer searched the house bearing No. 3000 situated in Prince Street, Yadavagiri, Mysore on 13-12-1985 and 14-12-1985 the petitioner was found in possession of bronze Vigraha of Lord Chandrashekara, Vigraha of Goddess Parvathi, idol of Warrior on horse, a wooden horoscope chart, paintings of Sri Ramapattabhisheka, paintings of Lord Balakrishna, 698 circular ganjeefa cards and 428 ganjeefa square cards which were declared as antiquities under the Act and the petitioner failed to get them registered as required under S. 14(3) of the Act and therefore charge sheet was filed against him on the file of the I Addl. CJM, Mysore, for an offence punishable under S. 14(3) r/w S. 25(2) of the Act. The petitioner has denied the charges and claimed to be tried. To establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P - 1 to P - 8 and M.Os. 1 to 10. The learned CJM after assessing the evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under S. 25(2) of the Act and imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 1 month. M.Os. 1 to 10 were ordered to be confiscated. Being aggrieved by that order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner in Crl. A. 31-97 came to be dismissed by the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore, by his Judgment dt. 31-10-97. The petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the order and judgment passed by both the Courts in this revision petition filed under S.397 and S.401, Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.

3. The fact that P.W. 1 Srikumara was a Superintendent of Police. CBI, searched the house of the petitioner bearing No. 3000, Prince Street, Yadavagiri, on 13-12-85 and also 14-12-85 and seized several articles said to be antiquities under Exs. P - 1 and P - 2 is not disputed seriously. The seizure of the articles mentioned at Exs. P - 1 and P - 2 in spoken to by P.W. 2 Ramakrishna and P.W. 3 Jayarama Rao and P.W. 4 Jagadish. On the other hand, the petitioner has admitted that M.Os. 1 to 10 were seized from his house under Ex. P - 1 when he was examined by the Court under S. 313, Cr.P.C. The evidence of P.W. 5 Shivashankar the registering authority discloses that he was working as such in the Archeological Dept., Palace Office, Mysore, during the relevant period and he has also stated that M.Os. 1 to 10 have not been registered at the said office as required under S. 14 of the Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the fact that these are antiquities as defined under the Act. S. 2 of the Act reads as follows :
"Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. -
(a) "antiquity" includes -
(I) (i) any coin, sculpture, painting, epigraph or other work of art or craftsmanship;
(ii) any article, object of thing detached from a building or cave;
(iii) any article, object or thing illustrative of science, art, crafts, literature, religion, customs, morals or politics in bygone ages;
(iv) any article, object or thing of historical interest;
(v) any article, object or thing declared by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be an antiquity for the purposes of this Act, which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years; and
(II) any manuscript, record or other document which is of scientific, historical, literary or aesthetic value and which has been in existence for not less than seventy - five years;
(b) "art treas