- News>
- India
Court acquits man in obscenity case; says no proof found
A Delhi court has acquitted a man of the charges of publishing obscene and pornographic content in a magazine here, saying the `offensive material` could have been published in his name by someone else to implicate him.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted a man of the charges of publishing obscene and pornographic content in a magazine here, saying the "offensive material" could have been published in his name by someone else to implicate him.
"Implicating accused Rajkumar Prashad only on the basis of his name being mentioned as editor without there being any other corroborative piece of evidence could be very dangerous.
"An offensive material can be published by a third person using the name of a second person who may not be having any concern with the matter published," Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Neeraj Gaur said.
The court passed the verdict while acquitting Bihar resident Prashad of the charges punishable under Section 292?(sale of obscene books) of the IPC and relevant sections of Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act.
On the complaint of Delhi-based Om Prakash, police had filed an FIR against Prashad and Noida resident Sudhir Aggarwal for publishing obscene and pornographic content.
The complainant had told the court that in June, 1999, he had purchased a magazine `Mermaid` and found that it contained obscene and pornographic content.
Prakash said he found that the magazine was printed, published and edited by Worldwide Publication and M P Printers and Raj Kumar`s name was mentioned as editor on the magazine.
Prashad was chargesheeted as his name was mentioned as editor, publisher and printer of the magazine on behalf of Worldwide Publishers and Distributors.
The court said no documents, including appointment letter etc, had been collected by the police during the investigation to establish that "Rajkumar was working as editor, printer or publisher on behalf of Worldwide Publishers." Prosecution had also failed to seize any other copy of the magazine.
It said that there was nothing on record to suggest that "Aggarwal or for that matter Raj Kumar were in-charge or responsible to M/s M P Printers Ltd". "The name of accused Aggarwal did not directly emerge from the contents of the magazine because in the magazine only the name of M/s M P Printers Ltd and Raj Kumar finds a mention," the court added. Co-accused Aggarwal was also acquitted by the court of the charges.
"Implicating accused Rajkumar Prashad only on the basis of his name being mentioned as editor without there being any other corroborative piece of evidence could be very dangerous.
"An offensive material can be published by a third person using the name of a second person who may not be having any concern with the matter published," Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Neeraj Gaur said.
The court passed the verdict while acquitting Bihar resident Prashad of the charges punishable under Section 292?(sale of obscene books) of the IPC and relevant sections of Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act.
On the complaint of Delhi-based Om Prakash, police had filed an FIR against Prashad and Noida resident Sudhir Aggarwal for publishing obscene and pornographic content.
The complainant had told the court that in June, 1999, he had purchased a magazine `Mermaid` and found that it contained obscene and pornographic content.
Prakash said he found that the magazine was printed, published and edited by Worldwide Publication and M P Printers and Raj Kumar`s name was mentioned as editor on the magazine.
Prashad was chargesheeted as his name was mentioned as editor, publisher and printer of the magazine on behalf of Worldwide Publishers and Distributors.
The court said no documents, including appointment letter etc, had been collected by the police during the investigation to establish that "Rajkumar was working as editor, printer or publisher on behalf of Worldwide Publishers." Prosecution had also failed to seize any other copy of the magazine.
It said that there was nothing on record to suggest that "Aggarwal or for that matter Raj Kumar were in-charge or responsible to M/s M P Printers Ltd". "The name of accused Aggarwal did not directly emerge from the contents of the magazine because in the magazine only the name of M/s M P Printers Ltd and Raj Kumar finds a mention," the court added. Co-accused Aggarwal was also acquitted by the court of the charges.