2000, therefore, conviction could be imposed under Sections 67 & 67-A of the said Act and not under Sections 292 and 293 of the IPC. He would place reliance on the judgment in the matter of Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) {(2017) 2 SCC 18} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the overriding effect of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as mentioned in Section 81 of the said Act. He would further submit that the materials which were seized vide Ex.-P/9 were not seized on the spot by the police and, therefore, the possibility of mixing/adding the seized articles cannot be ruled out. He would further submit that there is no sufficient material to demonstrate that the contents were obscene in nature. It was also submitted that mere possession of obscene cassettes cannot by itself attract the offence punishable under Section 292 of the IPC, unless the possession was not found for the purpose enumerated under sub-section (2) of Section 292 of the IPC i.e. for sell, lets to hire, distributes or publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation. So the purpose of lending out has not been proved. He would further submit that only Ram Kumar Kashyap (PW-5) and Basant Lal Poyam (PW-6) have been examined by the prosecution and other independent witnesses namely, RM Sahu, MR Nag and KK Kuldeep were not examined, and the witnesses, who have been
