Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Golla Murali vs The State Of A P Rep By P on 8 April, 2026
APHC010143492008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3560]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1599/2008
Between:
1. GOLLA MURALI, S/O.LATE G.NARENDRA, R/O.OPP.POLICE
PARADE GROUNDS, REHAMATH NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of
A.P., Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.67 of 2007 dated 29.10.2008 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur as modified the sentence passed in C.C.No.285 of 2007 dated 20.6.2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur.
IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2189 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.285 of 2005 dated 20.6.2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur.
2IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2195 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Judgment and sentence passed in Crl.Appeal No.67 of 2007 dated 29.10.2008 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur as modified the conviction in CC.No. 285 of 2007 dated 20.6.2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur and consequently release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following Order:
The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court against the present petitioner whereby the petitioner/accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 292 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Brief fact of the prosecution case:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur I Town Police Station (PW.3), on receiving credible information on 03.04.2005, secured the presence of mediators/PWs.1 and 2, and with his staff proceeded to Shutter Bunk situated in front of K.M.K. Diagnostic Center, Kamala Nagar, Anantapur and found the accused in possession of six blue film compact discs and those discs were seized under seizure list in presence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 sent his constable PC 401 to bring a television set and D.V.D.player, then Sub-Inspector of Police exhibited the above six compact discs and found that they are blue film compact discs. Hence, the petitioner was arrested. Charge was framed against the petitioner under Sections 292 and 293 IPC. During trial, prosecution has produced two mediators as PWs.1 and 2 and Investigation Officer (PW.3). After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner from charge under Section 293 IPC but convicted him under Section 292 IPC. The same order was challenged before the appellate Court. The 4 appeal was dismissed confirming the order. Hence, the present criminal revision.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
The impugned order of conviction and sentence is purely illegal and is liable to be set aside. PWs.1 and 2 are mediators and they did not support prosecution case but the solitary witness of investigating officer against the petitioner is not sustainable. He again submitted that prosecution has filed cases on the basis of wrong information. The petitioner is not guilty for the offence as alleged he has been falsely implicated in this case. PWs.1 and 2 are stock witnesses they are shown as witnesses in other cases on behalf of the prosecution. The alleged place of offence is a busy locality and other persons may have there. No independent witness is not supported the prosecution case. The observation of the Trial Court and Appellate Court is illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. Submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:
The issue was raised before the learned Courts below regarding the credibility of the witness of PWs.1 and 2. Though PWs.1 and 2 does not support the prosecution case, they admitted the signatures in Mahajar. The petitioner being accused has found guilty in presence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 is Investigating Officer, who held the seizure and arrested the accused in presence of PWs.1 and 2. He further submits that the learned Courts below further held that the evidence of PW.3 cannot be disbelieved as he is an investigating officer of this case. He further submits that the learned appellate 5 Court has categorically observed that the case of the prosecution has rightfully proved the charge against the present petitioner. There is no merit in the instant revision case.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the observations made in the judgments of the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
6. A charge was framed under Sections 329 and 292 IPC for selling and possessing of CD containing obscene material. Prosecution could not prove selling of CD by petitioner but he was found guilty by the learned trial Court for the offence of possession of such CD, which were marked as MOs.1 to 6. Basically in this case only three witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 and 2/mediators of mahazar, who admitted the signatures but did not support the prosecution case. Merely admitting signatures on the seizure list/mahajar report is not sufficient to substantiate the offence against the petitioner under Section 292 of IPC.
7. Prosecution has to prove that the petitioner was in possession of those six compact discs containing blue films. It further appears from the prosecution case that immediately after seizure, blue films M.Os.1 to 6 were run through a DVD player in a television at the scene of offence. Such fact though narrated in the prosecution case but not proved by, the constables present there, who brought the television set and DVD player, he was also not cited as witness in this case, thereby, it is quite disbelievable that material objects 1 to 6 contained blue films. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the case was not seriously challenged by the defence 6 before the learned Courts below. It is made clear that all prosecution cases have to bring home charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, prosecution could not prove the possession of the compact discs being M.Os.1 to 6 of the petitioner. Moreover, prosecution also failed to prove that M.Os.1 to 6 contain blue films by submission of report by any expert. It further appears that PW.3 being Sub-Inspector of Police has conducted raid at the shop of the petitioner and also conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet. Conduction of raid, initiation of criminal proceeding and investigation of same criminal proceedings cannot be concluded by same and similar police officer. In this case, the prosecution case has miserably failed to follow values and directives of the criminal law, for fair investigation. If any criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of a police report, such criminal case should be investigated by another police officer for purpose of fairness of investigation of criminal case. The order of conviction and sentence appears to be illegal and improper, hence, the same is set aside. The petitioner is hereby acquitted as he is not found guilty to the charge. Therefore, the judgment dated 20.06.2007 in C.C.No.285 of 2005 of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Ananthapur, as well as judgment dated 29.10.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2007 of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge Ananthapur, are hereby set aside.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused is hereby acquitted from this case.
9. The sureties standing in favour of the petitioner are also released. 7
10. On the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 08.04.2026 SPP 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1599 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2026 SPP