Ahmedabad's 21-Year Porn Film Case Concludes with All Accused Acquitted
In a remarkable legal conclusion that unfolded like a slow-burning drama, a case that once triggered police raids and public scandal in Ahmedabad has finally reached its end after more than two decades. The judicial magistrate of the Ahmedabad rural court acquitted all 109 individuals accused of watching an unlicensed pornographic film, bringing closure to a prosecution that had long lost its momentum.
The Raid That Started It All
The origins of this protracted legal battle trace back to January 2, 2005, when the Ghatlodia police, acting on specific intelligence, conducted a sudden raid on Krishna Laser Cinema. Authorities suspected that an adult film titled 'Umang' was being screened without the necessary certification from the Central Board of Film Certification. The operation resulted in the detention of 109 audience members along with theatre owner Rajendra Patel and projectionist Naresh Parmar.
Charges were formally filed for the unlicensed public exhibition of content and alleged viewing of obscene material. The case proceeded to the judicial magistrate's court in Ahmedabad's rural jurisdiction, initiating what would become a 21-year legal odyssey.
The Fading Legal Proceedings
As years turned into decades, the accused gradually stopped appearing before the court despite repeated summons and warrants. By October 2025, the magistrate invoked Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code to conduct the trial in absentia, acknowledging the prolonged non-appearance of the defendants.
The prosecution's case weakened significantly over time. Only two police constables were examined as witnesses, with no independent witnesses presented to corroborate the allegations. Crucially, Police Sub-Inspector N.R. Yadav, whose tip-off had prompted the original raid, passed away in 2010, leaving a substantial gap in the evidentiary chain.
The Court's Rationale for Acquittal
In its detailed judgment, the court emphasized the insufficiency of prosecution evidence, particularly noting the absence of independent witness testimony. "The accused persons cannot be convicted merely on the basis of the testimony of police witnesses, as no independent witness has been examined," the court observed in its ruling.
The judgment further highlighted the case's extraordinary duration, stating, "The present case has been pending for nearly 21 years. It is meaningless to follow the procedure of keeping the accused present for the pronouncement of the judgment. No evidence has been presented in this case which can establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
Broader Implications and Conclusion
This case underscores significant challenges in prosecuting decades-old offenses where witness availability diminishes and evidentiary standards must be rigorously maintained. The acquittal serves as a reminder of the judicial principle that conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, a standard the prosecution failed to meet in this instance.
While the legal proceedings have concluded, the case remains a notable chapter in Ahmedabad's legal history, illustrating how time can transform even the most sensational cases into matters of procedural technicality and evidentiary scrutiny.
