IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR
ANIL L. PANSARE, J.
Kishor S/o. Sureshchandra Darda & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Yavatmal - Respondent
Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 295, 296 & 297 of 2017
Decided On : 06-11-2023
POCSO Act - Discharge of Applicants - Section 21 of POCSO Act, Section 75 of JJ Act - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, who were school authorities, sought discharge from offences under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act. The allegations involved molestation of girl-students by teachers, leading to charge-sheeting of the applicants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants were not aware of the incidents prior to 29th June 2016 and promptly responded to the parents' grievance by taking action against the accused teachers. The court held that the applicants did not have the requisite knowledge or reason to believe the commission of the offences.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants had failed to report the offences under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the applicants' prompt response to the parents' grievance indicated their lack of prior knowledge of the incidents, and therefore, they could not be held liable under the mentioned sections. The court also highlighted the distinction between 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' as per legal interpretations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications, quashed the impugned orders, and discharged the applicants from the offences punishable under Sections 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. F.T. Mirza, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, the learned APP for the Respondent-State, at length.
2. The applicant in Criminal APL Nos.295/2017 and 296/2017 is one and the same, namely Kishor Sureschandra Darda. He is the Secretary of Jawaharlal Darda Education Society, Yavatmal, which inter alia manages and looks after Yavatmal Public School, Yavatmal. The applicant in APL No. 297/2017 was initially working as a teacher in the said School and at the relevant point of time, was working as a Coordinator in the School.
3. It appears that two first information reports (“FIRs”) were lodged by two parents against two teachers, namely, Amol Kshirsagar and Yash Borundia, working with the aforesaid School. The allegations in both the FIRs are identical, viz. those two teachers have molested girl-students of the school by moving their hands on their chests and by putting their hands inside undergarments. Accordingly, two FIRs came to be registered vide FIR Nos. 480/2016 and 489/2016. FIR No. 480/2016 is registered for offences punishable u/ss. 354 read with Sec. 8,10,12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and FIR No.489/2016 was registered u/ss. 376 (2)(f) and 354 of the IPC and sections 6, 8, 10,12 and 21 of the POCSO Act. The charge-sheet, however, was filed in both the cases for the offences punishable u/ss. 354, 354A, 376(2)(f) of Indian penal Code and Sections 6,8,10,21 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘J.J. Act’). So far as the applicants are concerned, they have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act.
4. Section 21 of the POCSO Act provides as under:-
(2) Any person, being in-charge of any company or an institution (by whatever name called) who fails to report the commission of an offence under sub-section (1) of Section 19 in respect of a subordinate under his control, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine.
(3) The provisions of sub-section(1) shall not apply to a child under this Act.”
Section 75 of the J.J. Act provides as under :
Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:
Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organization, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extent up to five lakhs rupees.
Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be l
The main legal point established is that the duty to report offences under the POCSO Act requires actual knowledge or reason to believe, and mere information or suspicion is not sufficient to attribu....
Limitation - Rejection of suit - Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on court to determine whether plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising averments in plaint, read in conjunction with documen....
Mandatory reporting of offences under the POCSO Act is crucial, and failure to report is punishable, emphasizing the seriousness of non-compliance.
Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be conducted for distinct offences alleged to be committed by a person. Sections 219 and 221 provide exceptions to this general rule. If a person falls....
Prompt and proper reporting of commission of offence under POCSO Act is of utmost importance – Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more ofte....
The interpretation of Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the POCSO Act was crucial in determining the liability of the accused for failure to report offences, leading to their discharge for certain charges.
Failure to promptly report knowledge of a sexual offence against a child constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and is punishable under Section 21.
The FIR lodged in good faith protects the informant under the POCSO Act; acquittal does not prove malicious prosecution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.