SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.
Pramod Anand Dhumal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Ant. Bail Application No. 1114 of 2020
Decided On : 07-01-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Aniket Nikam i/by Vivek Arote, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Veera Shinde, APP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the penal provisions of Section 67 and Section 67-A of the IT Act, and the necessity of material containing sexually explicit acts to attract Section 67-A.

Headnote:

IT Act - Pre-arrest bail - Section 67, Section 67-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 67 of the IT Act pertains to the punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, while Section 67-A deals with the punishment for publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form. The court discussed the distinction between the two sections and emphasized the necessity of material containing sexually explicit acts to attract Section 67-A. The judgment highlighted the definitions of 'lascivious' and 'explicit' and their relevance in determining the applicability of the respective sections. The court concluded that the material sent by the applicant did not constitute 'sexually explicit act' as required by Section 67-A, and therefore, the penal provisions of Section 67-A were not attracted to the facts of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, an editor of a local weekly Marathi newspaper and a social activist, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under Section 354-D of the IPC and Section 67-A of the IT Act. The complainant, a housewife, received offending messages and images from the applicant's cell phone, leading to the registration of the case against him.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the material sent by the applicant did not constitute 'sexually explicit act' as required by Section 67-A of the IT Act. Additionally, the court observed the applicant's complicity in the offence of stalking under Section 354-D of the IPC, but granted him pre-arrest bail considering the punishment prescribed for the first offence under Section 67 of the IT Act.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Sections 67 and 67-A of the IT Act, the nature of the material sent by the applicant, and his complicity in the offence of stalking.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the distinction between the provisions of Section 67 and Section 67-A of the IT Act, the definitions of 'lascivious' and 'explicit', and the prima facie evidence of the applicant's complicity in the offence of stalking.

Final Decision: The court granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant and imposed certain conditions, including executing a PR bond, attending the police station, furnishing his residential address and contact number, and refraining from tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant and witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

1. Apprehending the arrest in connection with Crime No.580 of 2020 dated 11th June, 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act” for short), applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. Applicant is editor of local weekly Marathi newspaper and social activist. Complainant, a house-wife, a 37 year old lady, had received messages in the form of offending images, revealing overt sexual desire on her Face-Book account, from the cell phone of the applicant. On 13th November, 2018, she had indicated her disinterest. Even thereafter, applicant had sent message like “I love you” to the complainant and link (Short for ‘Hyperlink’) on her facebook. She tapped the link, whole document was containing lascivious material. Soon thereafter, she lodged the complaint whereupon the subject crime has been registered against the applicant under Section 354-D of the IPC and Section 67-A of the IT Act.

3. Applicant was denied pre-arrest protection by the learned Sessions Judge.

4. Section 67-A of the IT Act reads as under:

    “67-A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.- Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.”

Whereas Section 67 of the IT Act reads as under:

    “67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.-- Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of 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 ten lakh rupees.”

5. So far as Section 67 is concerned, before offence thereunder can be said to be complete, publication or transmission of material in the electronic form is essential. If such material; is lascivious or appeal to prurient interest or its effect is such as to tend or deprave or corrupt persons, who are likely, having regard to the all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contend or embodied in it. Material in the electronic form could be video files, audio files, text messages, animation, etc. Lascivious means lewd, lustful or feeling and or revealing an overt or offensive sexual desire or which tend to excite lust. As against this, before the offence can be said to be complete under Section 67-A of the IT Act, prosecution must demonstrate or show that accused has published or transmitted material containing sexually explicit act. Explicit means “clear and detail”, with no room for confusion or doubt or when sexual activity is graphically described or represented electronically. When such act is electronically published or transmitted particularly amongst adult, it is punishable under Section 67-A of the IT Act. Expression Explicit means “Stated clearly and precisely and or prescribing or representing sexual activity in direct and detailed way”. Expression “Sexual Activity” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “Physical sexual

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top