Allowed

M.Sridhar, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC22 Feb 2023CRLRC/886/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision concerning conviction under Section 292 IPC for exhibiting pornographic materials, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt due to lack of cyber forensic lab reports on seized equipment and absence of customer witnesses. The conviction and sentence were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court were set aside, and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

M.Sridhar, Vs the State of a.P., Rep… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP: The Accused were directed to be released on bail vide Court Order daied26.04.2010 in CRl.RC.MP.No.1296 of 2010

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶4

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 886 OF 2010

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.03.2010 as made in Crl.A.No. 411 o'f 2009 on the file of the Vl Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad Preferred against the Judgment dated 20.11.2009 as made in CC.No.482 of 2006 on the file of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.Sridhar, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Business, Fyo. H.No. 1-12-196m, Chinna Thokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana., through Police Station Karkana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. IMMANENI RAMA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN}

¶19

CRIMINAL REVIS^{ION CASENo.886 of 2O10}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This revision is^{filed aggrievedby the orders dated} 18.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.411^{of 2009 on the liie of the} Special Judge^{for Trial of Offencesunder S'Cs' and S'Ts} (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional^{MetropolitanSessions Judge'} Secunderabad,^{confirmingthe conviction and sentenced} awarded by the trial^{Court vicle judgmentdated 20'll '2009} in C.C.No.482 of^2006.

¶22

The facts leading to^{filing of this revlslonby the} petitioner are as under:

¶23

a. On information that^{the owner of Smile Stone Cyber} Cafe situated at Karkhana.^{Hyderabad,was indulgingin} downloading the^{pornographicclippings and exhibitingthe} same in his c1'ber^{caf6 using computersto the customers} by chargir:g Rs.40/- to^{Rs.50/- per hour, the Sub-} lnspector of Poiice, Karkhana,^{visited the said premises at} 7.OO p.m. on 01.06.2005 and found the^petitioner indulging in exhibiting obscene movie clippings to the

)

)

customers. The Sub-Inspector of police has issued search proceedings, conducted the panchalama and seized the computers. The Sub-lnspector of police has filed a report to the Station House Officer. pW.2 basing on which a case in Crime No.l12 of 2OO5 has been registered and a-fter completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.482 of 2006. During the course of investigation, the prosecution has examined the Sub_lnspector of police as PW. 1 and another Sub-Inspector of police, who has completed the investigation and filed charge sheet, as pW.2 and got marked search proceedings as Ex.pl, panchanama as Ex.P2, report given by pW.1 as Ex.p3 and FIR as Ex.p4 and two monitors seized are marked as I{O.1, two CpUs as MO.2 and two keyboards and mousse as MOs.3 and 4 respectively. On completion of the entire trial, the tria_l Court has found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 292 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

¶29

b. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.411 of 2009. On hearing both sides, the

¶30

// ,/, I ,// {r',/

¶31

¶32

appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by way of judgment dated 18.03.2010 confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner in C.C.No.482 of 2006 for the offence under Section 292 lPC. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial Court vvas converted to one month.

¶33

3, Aggrieved by the said j udgment, the present revision is filed on the following grounds:

¶34

The Courts below ought to have noticed that the prosecution has failed to make out a case for the offence alleged against the petitioner. The Courts below erred in holding the petitioner guittl. for the offence alleged against him. The Courts below ought ro have noticed that no hard disc with the alleged commission of offence was seized by the police and that the Courts below ought not to have gone by surmises and conjunctions. The appellate Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner instead of modifying the sentence. The Courts below ought to have noticed that establishing guilt against the petitioner requires technical expert's he1p, but nothing of that sort is sought by the

¶35

¶36

police arrd therefore, prayed the Court to a-llow the revision

¶37

case.

¶38

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶39

Now, the point for determination is whether the sentence and conviction imposeid by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court can be set aside?

¶40

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has faited to establish that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 292 IPC.

¶41

In order to point out the petitioner guitty of the offence under Section 292 lPC, the prosecution is expected to prove that the petitioner'was exhibiting publicly pornographic video clippings through computers. It is the evidence of PW.l that when he has visited the premises belonging to the petitioner at Karkhana at 7.00 p.m., the petitioner was indulging in exhibiting pornographic video clippings downloaded from the internet to the customers. Therefore, in order to substanti ate thg allegation levelled

'[\

against the petitioner, the prosecution is expected to prove that the petitioner was exhibiting the pornographic video clippings. PW. t has not seen while the pornographic video clippings were being exhibited. None of the customers, who have seen the pornographic video clippings were not examined by the police during the course of investigation and were not produced before the Court. More importantly police have though seized the hard disc in the form of CpU and monitor and mouse as MOs. I to 4, failed to send the CPU to the cyber forensic laboratory to get a report whether the hard disc in the CpU was consisting of pornographic video clippings. Unless the CpU, which was seized by the police and produced before the Court contains pornographic video clippings, it caxnot be said that the petitioner has downloaded them frorn the internet in order to sl-row them to the customers. Further, it is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner has downloaded the pornographic video clippings from different websites of the internet. The prosecution has not established as to from which of the pornographic websites the petitioner has downloaded the materia.l. In order to

¶47

¶48

prove this, the police could have taken the assistance of cyber crime department of police wing who could have easily with the help of IP address track as to whether the petitioner has really downloaded any content of the pomographic from a specifrc website of the internet.

¶49

It is also the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been displaying the pornographic videos to the customers by collecting Rs.40/- to Rs.50/- per hour. Whenever the customers approach the cyber caf6, the details of the customers and date of time of using the computer system will have to be mentioned in the concerned register. Nothing is seized from the cyber cafe belonging to the petitioner to show that Rs.40/- to Rs.50/was being collected from the customers. Finally, as already observed, unless a customer comes before the Court and establishes that he has seen the pornographic video by paying money in the cyber cafe of the petitioner, the contention of the prosecution cannot be accepted.

¶50

This Court has gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court. Both the Courts have

¶51

¶52

:r.!i

¶53

misled themselves in conclucling that merely because the police have seized the CpU, the said CpU contains of pomographic videos. Unless tl-re contents inside the CpU in the concerned hard disc is proved to be having the contents of pornographic videos b1, way of the certificate given by the cvber forensic laboratory, the contention of the prosecution cannot be acceoted.

¶54

In view of the discussion made above, the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Sectio n 292 lpC, thereby he is entitled for acquittal.

¶55

I 1. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed and the sentence and conr,iction imposed by the trial Court in C.C.No.482 of 2006 vide judgment dated 2}.tt.2OOg and conhrmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.41 1 of 2009 vide judgment dated 18.03.2010 are hereby set aside.

¶56

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stard closed

¶57

To,

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR t- / ltr

¶60

SECTION OFFICER

¶61

The Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magrstrate, Secunderabad.

¶62

The Vt Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad 3. The Station House officer, Karkana police Station, Karkana Hyderabad

¶63

One CC to SRt. |MMANEN| RAMA RAO Advocate [OpUC]

¶64

1. TwoTwo ccs to the pu8ltc pRosECUTOR (TG) TSHC, at Hyderabad [ouT]

? CD Copies

DT.DNRJ

DATED: 2210212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.886 ot 2010

-'.,iri-,.r ,-''
I1 i{Ll ?l:j

¶72

THE CRIMINAL REVISTON IS

¶73

DISPOSED OFF

¶74

5.o
*\ts

M.Sridhar, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sridhar, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tak Ghagan Singh Vs the State of A.P.

Tak Ghagan Singh Vs the State of A.P.

A.v.Koti Reddy Vs Kunchela Venkateshwarlu and the State of A.P.

Chinthakuntla Manga Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Sd Faisal Dawood Vs the State of A.P

N. Venkata Narayana, and 3 Others, Vs Mr. Javid Rahaman, and 8 Others