Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 501 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Prem Chand

2002-02-27

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No. 134/89 State v. Premchand and Kishanlal on 14.11.1990 . 2. The respondents Premchand and Kishanlal were charged under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 52A read with Section 68A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. 3. The prosecution story was to the effect that on 24.2.89, PW 4 Pratap Singh SHO Police Station, Jaisalmer went to a shop, which was being run in the name and style of Krishna videos and recovered 11 video cassettes lying in the shop. A Television-set along with a VCR-set, which were lying in the shop were also seized. According to the prosecution story, the accused Premchand was the owner of the said shop and the accused Kishanlal was in his employment. 4. Both the accused-persons pleaded not guilty to the charges. 5. PW 1 Vasudeo, PW 2 Purshottam, PW 3 Ram Singh, S.I. and PW 4 Pratap Singh, S.H.O. were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. No defence evidence was led by the accused-persons. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 14.11.90 and acquitted the accused-persons against which the State has come in appeal. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused-respondents and I find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same requires to be dismissed. 7. So far as the alleged offences under Section 52A read with Section 68A of the Copyright Act are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence against the respondents. In the entire evidence, it is not disclosed as to who was the person who had any copyright in connection with the material recovered. Section 52A of the Copyright Act prohibits that no person shall publish a record in respect of any work unless certain particulars were displayed on record. In the instant case, there is no evidence that any record was published or displayed. The cassettes in question were allegedly lying inside the shop wherefrom they were recovered. There is no oral or other evidence to suggest that the same were ever displayed to any customer or to any person. In the instant case, there is no evidence that any record was published or displayed. The cassettes in question were allegedly lying inside the shop wherefrom they were recovered. There is no oral or other evidence to suggest that the same were ever displayed to any customer or to any person. There was, thus, no material to find the respondents guilty under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. 8. Similarly, I find that there is no evidence to find the respondents guilty under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Section 7 of the said Act is attracted only when any material is exhibited at any place. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the cassettes which were recovered were ever exhibited before any person or audience. It is not proved that the TV and VCR recovered in the shop were ever used for exhibiting any of the cassettes. The learned trial court found that the VCR in question belonged to Farman Ali s/o Murad Ali and the TV belonged to Laxmi Narain s/o Mansukh Ram Khatri, who produced documentary proof about their ownership and consequently, the articles were given to them. Both the owners made mention in the applications that two articles were sent to the shop for repairs. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that unless there is evidence of exhibition, Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 cannot be attracted and consequently, there was no evidence to find the accused-respondents guilty for the said offence. 10. The evidence, which has come on record, does not establish that any offence under Section 292, IPC stood proved. The prosecution story is to the effect that the recovered cassettes contained scenes of 'nudity'. PW 4 Pratap Singh, S.H.O. States that there were 11 cassettes and each one was seen for 15 minutes and thereafter the recovery memos etc were prepared in the shop. In his cross-examination, he admits that their total stay in the shop was between 1.30 hour to 2 hours. Needless to say that if each cassette was displayed and watched for 15 minutes, then, nearly 3 hours will take in the display of eleven cassettes. However, according to PW 4 Pratap Singh, their total stay in the shop did not exceed two hours. This falsifies the prosecution story. There is no site plan of the place of recovery. Needless to say that if each cassette was displayed and watched for 15 minutes, then, nearly 3 hours will take in the display of eleven cassettes. However, according to PW 4 Pratap Singh, their total stay in the shop did not exceed two hours. This falsifies the prosecution story. There is no site plan of the place of recovery. No memo contains any time on it. There is no evidence to suggest that at what time, the police people reached the shop and at what time, they left it. There Is evidence to the effect that after receiving a secret information, the police party left the police station after making an entry in the 'Rojnamcha' of the Police Station. However, no such entry in the 'Rojnamcha' has been tendered in evidence. For the purpose of corroboration, PW 1 Vasudeo and PW 2 Purshottam were produced in Court. Both denied the prosecution story that anything was recovered from the shop concerned. Both have stated to the effect that they were called in the police station and were made to sign the memos in the police station. There is, thus, no independent corroboration. 11. In order to find a person guilty under Section 292, IPC, it is necessary to show that the material in question was lascivious or appealed to the prurient interest of the person watching and the same tends to deprave and corrupt persons who may watch the same. In the instant case, there is no evidence worth-the-name to attract Section 292, IPC. Eleven cassettes containing films for display are said to have been recovered. PW 3 Ram Singh, S.I. and PW 4 Pratap Singh, S.H.O. have termed them 'Blue Films' and both have stated that there was 'nudity' in the films. It is not explained as to how they termed and word 'nudity' nor they gave any description of any scene in evidence. It was expected that a transcript of each cassettes was prepared but no such transcript was prepared in respect of a single cassette. Both the witnesses have stated, in an omnibus manner, and not made clear as to how they considered the scenes 'obscene' and objectionable. Instead of explaining each cassette, they have finished the job by saying a single sentence that all the films contained 'nudity'. Both the witnesses have stated, in an omnibus manner, and not made clear as to how they considered the scenes 'obscene' and objectionable. Instead of explaining each cassette, they have finished the job by saying a single sentence that all the films contained 'nudity'. However, PW 3 Ram Singh could not tell as to how many films were in Hindi and how many of them were in English language. 12. In view of the discussion made above, no finding of guilt under Section 292, IPC could be arrived at. 13. The result is that there is no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the learned trial court.Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******