1. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.259/1999 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - I, Kottayam (for short, the trial court). He faced trial for the offence punishable under S.292(2)(a), (c) and (d) of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13/12/1997 at 3 p.m., the accused was found in possession for sale / hire, ten obscene video cassettes at his video shop, namely 'Omega Videos and Communications' situated at House No.4 in Ward No.II of Kuroppada Panchayat.

3. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. MOI series, MOII and MOIII were identified. After trial, the trial court found that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under S.292(2)(a), (c) and (d) of the IPC, and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Sessions Court, Kottayam (for short, the appellate court) in Crl.A.No.312/2005. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

4. I have heard Sri. M. P. Madhavankutty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while judging the question of obscenity, the learned Magistrate himself ought to have viewed the video cassettes in question and satisfied himself that those cassettes contained obscene motion pictures and in the absence of the same, the conviction based on the oral evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6 and PW7 is not sustainable. Reliance was placed on Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KHC 677). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. PW7 is the detecting officer. He, along with PW1 and PW2, visited the shop allegedly owned by the petitioner on 13/12/1997 at 3 p.m. and seized ten video cassettes (MO1 series) exhibited therein for the purpose of lending to the customers. PW7, along with PW1 and PW2, viewed the cassettes by playing them in a television and VCR kept in the shop and satisfied themselves that they contained several obscene scenes. Then PW7 arrested the petitioner, and registered Ext.P5 FIR. During the investigation, the investigating officer gave a direction to PW4, Tahsildar, to view MO1 series video cassettes. Accordingly, PW4 viewed all ten cassettes and filed Ext.P2 report. PW6 Sub Inspector of Police, Pampady, also viewed the video cassettes along with PW4. Ext.P2 report coupled with the evidence of PW4 would show that all the cassettes contained obscene scenes.

7. Even though the petitioner has taken up a contention that he was neither the owner nor in any way connected with the video cassette shop in question and that the person arrested by PW7 was one Mr.Jacob Cherian, the trial court as well as the appellate court negativated the said contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not canvass any argument on the said point.

8. To attract sub-section (2) of S.292, the prosecution has to prove that a person sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation or has in his possession for the purpose of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation any obscene representation or object. The word 'obscene' is not defined under IPC, IT Act or POCSO Act. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word 'obscene' as "extremely offensive under contempor