Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 227    OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2537/2012)

Gita Ram & Anr.                                       …………Appellant(s)

Vs.

State of H.P.                                             ………..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.Y.EQBAL,J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment  

and order dated 21.11.2011 of the High Court of Himachal  

Pradesh at Shimla in CRLR No. 36/2006.  Notice was issued  

on the limited question of sentence in a conviction of the  

appellants under Section 292 read with Section 34 of the IPC  

and Section 7 of Cinematograph Act.

3. The prosecution case was that on 07.12.2001 on the  

basis  of  secret  information the patrolling party  raided the  

1

Page 2

premises in Dhawan Video Hall, Sai Road and found that the  

appellants were showing blue film to young men and about  

15 viewers were there in the hall.  It was alleged that CD of  

blue  film,  namely  “Size  Matter”  was  displayed  by  the  

appellants to the viewers on Videocon TV Sony C.D. player,  

one CD namely “Size Matter”, two C.Ds. of “Jawani Ka Khel”,  

remote,  ticket  book,  T.V.  and  poster  were  taken  into  

possession in the presence of the witnesses.  

4. The appellants  were  charged for  offences  punishable  

under Section 292 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 7 of  

Cinematograph Act.

5.  After the statements of the appellants were recorded  

under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.  the  trial  began  and,  finally  on  

completion  of  trial  the  Sub  Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate  

convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo simple  

imprisonment for 6 months under Section 292 of the IPC and  

fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7 of Cinematograph Act.

6. On  appeal  filed  by  the  appellants,  the  Additional  

Sessions Judge Fast  Track Court,  Solan Camp at  Nalagarh  

affirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court.  However,  

2

Page 3

the appellants being first offenders Sessions Judge showed  

some leniency in sentence of imprisonment and instead of  

imprisonment of 6 months the appellants were sentenced to  

simple  imprisonment  for  one  month  each.   The  sentence  

awarded by the Trial Court was modified to that extent.  The  

imposition  of  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  by  the  trial  court  for  the  

offence under Section 292 IPC and further fine of Rs.1000/-  

was imposed on them for  offence under  Section 7 of  the  

Cinematograph Act, were maintained.  The appellants then  

preferred  revision  before  the  High  Court  of  Himachal  

Pradesh.   The  High  Court  examined  all  the  materials  

available  on  record  as  also  the  evidence,  both  oral  and  

documentary and finally came to the conclusion that there is  

no perversity in the impugned judgment.  Accordingly, the  

revision was dismissed.

7. Ms.  Sweta  Garg,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants  submitted  that  the  appellants  are  not  habitual  

offenders and having regard to the fact that the appellants,  

for  the  first  time,  were  found  to  be  indulged  in  the  

commission  of  offence  they  deserved  to  be  released  on  

3

Page 4

probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.  

Learned counsel submitted that the ends of the justice would  

be sub-served if the sentence is modified only by imposing  

of fine and they may be asked to furnish bond in terms of  

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

8. We are unable to appreciate the submissions made by  

the learned counsel.  Section 292 IPC reads as under:

“Sale, etc. of obscene books, etc.-  [(1) For the purposes of sub-section(2), a  book,  pamphlet,  paper,  writing,  drawing,  painting,  representation,  figure  or  any  other  object,  shall  be  deemed  to  be  obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the  prurient interest  or if its effect, or (where  it  comprises  two  or  more  distinct  items)  the  effect  of  any  one  of  its  items,  is,  if  taken  as  a  whole,  such  as  to  tend  to  deprave  and  corrupt  person,  who  are  likely,  having  regard  to  all  relevant  circumstances,  to  read,  see  or  hear  the  matter contained or embodied in it.]

[(2)] Whoever –

(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly  exhibits  or  in  any  manner  puts  into  circulation,  or  for  purposes  of  sale,  hire  distribution, public exhibition or circulation,  makes produces or has in his possession  any  obscene  book,  pamphlet,  paper,  drawing, painting, representation or figure  

4

Page 5

or  any other  obscene object  whatsoever,  or

(b)  imports,  exports  or  conveys  any  obscene  object  for  any  of  the  purposes  aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to  believe that such object will be sold, let to  hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in  any manner put into circulation, or  

(c) takes part in or receives profits from  any  business  in  the  course  of  which  he  knows or  has reason to  believe that  any  such  obscene  objects  are  for  any  of  the  purposes  aforesaid,  made,  produced,  purchased,  kept,  imported,  exported,  conveyed,  publicly  exhibited  or  in  any  manner put into circulation, or

(d) advertises or makes known by any  means  whatsoever  that  any  person  is  engaged or is ready to engage in any act  which is an offence under this section, or  that  any  such  obscene  object  can  be  procured from or through any person, or

(e)  offers  or  attempts  to  do  any  act  which is an offence under this section,

shall be punished [on first conviction with  imprisonment  of  either  description  for  a  term which may extend to two years, and  with  fine  which  may  extend  to  two  thousand  rupees,  and,  in  the  event  of  a  second  or  subsequent  conviction,  with  imprisonment  of  either  description  for  a  term which may extend to five years, and  also  with  fine  which  may  extend  to  five  thousand rupees].

[Exception  …………………………………………..”

5

Page 6

9. The aforesaid provision was amended in 1969 whereby  

a  dichotomy  of  penal  treatment  was  introduced  for  

dealing  with  the  first  offenders  and  the  subsequent  

offenders.   The  intention  of  the  Legislature  while  

amending  the  provision  is  to  deal  with  this  type  of  

offences which corrupt the  mind of the people to whom  

objectionable things can easily reach and need not be  

emphasized that corrupting influence is more likely to  

be  upon  the  younger  generation  who  has  got  to  be  

protected  from  being  easy  prey.   Exactly,  a  similar  

question was considered by this Court in the case of  

Uttam Singh      vs.  The State (Delhi Administration  )    

1974  (4)  SCC  590.   In  that  case  the  accused  was  

convicted  under  Section  292  IPC  on  the  charge  of  

selling  a  packet  of  playing  cards  portraying  on  the  

reverse  luridly  obscene  naked  pictures  of  men  and  

women  in  pornographic  sexual  postures.   A  similar  

argument was advanced by the counsel to give benefit  

of  Section  4  of  the  Probation  of  Offenders  Act.  The  

Court rejecting the submission observed:

6

Page 7

“There  are  certain  exceptions  to  this  section with which we are not concerned.  This  section  was  amended  by  Act  XXXVI  when apart from enlarging the scope of the  exceptions,  the  penalty  was  enhanced  which was earlier  up to  three months or  with fine or with both. By the amendment  a  dichotomy  of  penal  treatment  was  introduced  for  dealing  with  the  first  offenders and the subsequent offenders. In  the  case  of  even  a  first  conviction  the  accused  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of  either  description  for  a  term which may extend to two years and  with  fine  which  may  extend  to  two  thousand  rupees.  The  intention  of  the  legislature is, therefore, made clear by the  amendment  in  1969  in  dealing  with  this  type of offences which corrupt the minds  of  people  to  whom  these  objectionable  things can easily reach and it needs not be  emphasized  that  the  corrupting  influence  of these pictures is more likely to be upon  the younger generation who has got to be  protected from being easy prey to  these  libidinous  appeals  upon  which  this  illicit  trade  is  based.  We  are,  therefore,  not  prepared to accept the submission of the  learned counsel to deal with the accused  leniently in this case.”

10. A similar view was taken by Punjab and Haryana High  

Court in the case of Bharat Bhushan vs. State of Punjab  

reported  in  1999  (2)  RCR  (Criminal)  148  refusing  to  give  

7

Page 8

benefit of probation for exhibiting blue film punishable under  

Sections 292 and 293 of the IPC.  The Court held that:  

“exhibiting blue film in which man and  woman were shown in the act of sexual  intercourse  to  young  boys  would  definitely  deprave  and  corrupt  their  morals.  Their  minds are impressionable.  On  their  impressionable  minds  anything  can  be  imprinted.  Things  would  have  been different if that blue film had been  exhibited  to  mature  minds.  Showing  a  man and a woman in the act  of  sexual  intercourse  tends  to  appealing  to  the  carnal  side  of  the  human  nature.  Petitioner  is  the  first  offender  and  is  a  petty  shopkeeper,  maintaining  a  family  and as such the High Court feel that he  should  be  dealt  with  leniently  in  the  matter  of  sentence.  He  cannot  be  released on probation of good conduct as  the act imputed to him tended to corrupt  and deprave the minds of immature and  adolescent boys.”

11. In  the  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case  and also  

considering  the  nature  of  the  activities  and  the  offence  

committed by the appellants,  we are unable to  show any  

leniency and to modify the sentence any further.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in  

the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

8

Page 9

 …………………………J.

  (T.S. THAKUR)

…………………………..J.          (M.Y.  

EQBAL) New Delhi February 01, 2013

9