JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. miscellaneous petition owes its origin in the order dated February 25, 1997 of the learned Special Judge ST/SC (prevention of Atrocities) cases, Jaipur whereby the order framing charge under section 292 IPC of the ACJM No. 5 Jaipur City against the accused petitioner was confirmed. 2. Brief resumes of the fact is that the petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 220/94 registered at police station kotwali Jaipur. During the course of investigation when the residential house of the petitioner was searched, five video cassettes were found in the home which were taken into custody. It is alleged that when those cassettes were displayed on the VCR, they were found containing absence photographs. Consequently, Investigating Officer seized the said cassettes vide regular seizure memo in June, 1994. Hardayal Singh SHO lodged a written report at Jawahar Nagar PS Jaipur under section 292 IPC and a case, section 7 of Cinematography Act, was registered. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the learned Judl. Magistrate, Jaipur framed charges under section 292 IPC and 7 of Cinematography Act against the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner assailed the findings by filing the revision petition and the learned revisional court which affirmed the charge under section 292 IPC. discharged the accused petitioner under 7 of Cinematography Act. Mr V.R. Bajwa learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed the impugned charge under section 292 IPC is totally misconceived. Both the courts below failed to appreciate that the absence of basic ingredients no constituting the offence under section 292 IPC. The video cassettes were not found in Exclusive possession of the accused petitioner. So also there is complete lack of material of evidence to spell out the purpose for passing the disputed cassettes. Unless there is a cogent evidence on record disclosing the specific purpose for which obscene article were held the offence under section 292 IPC cannot be invoked. There is complete lack of evidence to suggest much less to prove that cassettes were held for the purpose of selling or letting on hire on for distributing or publically exhibiting or putting the same in circulation. Reliance was place on Mohan Gupta v. State (Delhi Administration) 1990 (2) Recent Criminal Reporter page 53 . 3. On the order hand Mr. Reliance was place on Mohan Gupta v. State (Delhi Administration) 1990 (2) Recent Criminal Reporter page 53 . 3. On the order hand Mr. M.L. Goel learned PP contended that there is sufficient material on record to ex-facie prove the offence under section 292 IPC. Learned PP further contended that at the stage of framing charge the statement of witnesses are not to be meticulously examined. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions advanced before me and carefully scanned the material on i^cord. Admittedly the accused petitioner was in police custody on the date of alleged search and seizure of video cassettes. It is necessary to establish that the cassettes were held for the purpose of selling or letting on hire or for distributing or publically exhibiting or for putting the same in the circulation. Unless all these purposes are disclosed from the material on record, no charge under section 292 IPC can be framed. During the investigation the investigating officer mainly examined the police persons who only stated without any bars in their statement 161 of Cr.PC. that the cassettes were kept for the purpose of selling. No independent witness was examined to show that the accused petitioner ever attempted to sell of circulate the cassette in the locality. Moreover the exclusive possession of the accused petitioner in the house from where the cassettes were recovered is not established from the material on record. 5. In Mohan Gupta v. State (Supra) Delhi High Court had an occasion to interpret section 292 IPC. It was propounded thus "This Section can be split up into two parts. A person commits the offence if he sells, lets to hire distributes, publicly exhibits or any manner puts into circulation any such absence material. This is the first part of the aforesaid sec. making the person guilty of offence of committing obscenity. The second part of the section makes it clear that if for purposes of sale hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation a person makes produces, or has in possession any obscene book etc. then he commits the offence of obscenity. So, the mere reading of the Sec. makes it clear that mere possession -any absence material is not made an offence under the said Section." 6. then he commits the offence of obscenity. So, the mere reading of the Sec. makes it clear that mere possession -any absence material is not made an offence under the said Section." 6. Thus, in view of what has been observed above, no case even ex-facie under section 292 IPC is made out against the accused petitioner and the learned courts below committed illegality in framing charge under section 292 IPC against the petitioner. 7. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition stands allowed, the impugned orders of framing charge under section 292 IPC against the accused petitioner is set-aside and the accused petitioner shall stand discharged from the charge under section 292 IPC. Record be sent back.Petition allowed. *******