THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1704 of 2006 Date:20.01.2014 Between:
Majji appa Rao and another.
. Petitioners.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1704 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 17-10-006 in Crl.A.No.224 of 2004 on the file of V Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru whereunder judgment dated 30-11-2004 in C.C.No.781 of 2000 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem was confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
On 17-05-2000, P.W.2 along with staff raided Sri Venkateswara Theatre at Pothavaram as per the instructions of Superintendent of Police, West Godavari and seized film ‘Adavi Dorasani’ being exhibited in the Theatre in the presence of B. Ramaseshu, V.A.O., and P.W.5 under a cover of a mediator report, which contain obscene parts and that a crime is registered for the offence under Section 292 IPC and Sections 51 & 68 of Copy Rights Act and the investigation revealed that both the accused are responsible for the said act of jointing obscene parts to the telugu film. The trial Court took the case on file and during trial examined eight witnesses and marked five documents besides the material object i.e., seized film. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 292 IPC and sentenced them to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and further convicted for the offence under Sections 51 & 68 of Copy Rights Act and sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, appeal is preferred to the Court of Sessions and V Additional District Judge, Eluru while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence by reducing the imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 292 IPC to six months and so also one year imprisonment for the offence under Sections 51 & 68 of Copy Rights Act to six months. Now aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of the appellate Court, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that appellate Court failed to consider the evidence on record and erroneously confirmed the conviction of the trial Court.
He further contended that there are no independent witnesses to substantiate the charge levelled against the revision petitioners and the findings are based on testimonies of interested witnesses who are official witnesses. It is further contended that there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to seizure of property and the Courts below failed to consider those discrepancies.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts rightly accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, on 17-05-2005, at about 11:00 or 11:30 P.M, there was a surprise raid on Venkateswara Theatre which is under lease to A1 and at the time of inspection, it is noticed that A2 is operating telugu film titled ‘Adavi Dorasani’, which contains bits of blue film parts added to the telugu film and that the said incriminating material was seized under a cover of mediator report in the presence of V.A.O and another. Out of the 8 witnesses examined, P.Ws.3 to 5 have not supported the prosecution case. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that out of the two mediators, one is examined as P.W.5 and he has not supported the prosecution case and the other mediator is not examined, therefore, there is no independent evidence. This aspect was urged before the appellate Court and the learned appellate Judge overruled the objection on the ground that there is evidence of P.W.8 who is running a tea stall out side the theatre which is supported and corroborated with the evidence of official witnesses and also contents of Ex.P1. I do not find any wrong appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
In a revision, the main points that have to be seen are whether the Courts below committed any illegality or wrong in giving findings. Here the offences alleged against the revision petitioners under Section 292 IPC and Sections 51 & 68 of Copy Rights Act. From the facts of the case, the events happened do attract these penal provisions. Both the Courts correctly appreciated evidence of prosecution witnesses and there is nothing wrong or illegality in any of the findings of the Courts below. The appellate Court even shown sympathy to the revision petitioners by reducing the sentence from two years to six months. The offence proved against the petitioners is a crime against society and in my view the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the appellate Court is quite reasonable and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below.
7. For these reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
8. The trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of the accused for undergoing unexpired portion of the sentence.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:20.01.2014 mrb