LAW FOR ALL

Section 292 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 7 of Cinematograph Act. = benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Court rejecting the submission observed: “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.” - 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 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.