IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Sreeja Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
BA No. 2459 of 2020
Decided on : 11-05-2020
Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 67;; Indian Penal Code-Section 294(b);; The Kerala Police Act- Section 120(o)- In order to attract Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, words used should be capable of arousing sexual thoughts in the minds of hearers and should involve lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires etc.
Statement of facts:
The prosecution case in nutshell is that the petitioner is an anchor of an online news channel which is airing news in Youtube and Facebook, published a news item which is lascivious and appeals to the prurient interest and hence the act amounts to an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and other offences. Therefore, the petitioner committed the above offence. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.987/2020 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act- Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
Finding of the court:
The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act is three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court observed that in cases in which maximum punishment is less than seven years, during the Covid-19 period and lockdown period, the bail application is to be considered liberally-The petitioner is only an anchor of the online news channel-She is a lady and there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner-Bail application can be allowed.
Result: Bail application allowed
ORDER :
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.987/2020 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
3.The prosecution case in nutshell is that the petitioner is an anchor of an online news channel which is airing news in Youtube and Facebook, published a news item which is lascivious and appeals to the prurient interest and hence the act amounts to an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and other offences. Therefore, the petitioner committed the above offence.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations in the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant are accepted, no offence under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act is attracted. He submitted that the only non bailable offence is under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. He also submitted that, eventhough such a news item was transmitted through the online news channel, she is regretting about some of the statements mentioned in the news item.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the averments in the complaint prima facie make out an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. According to him, the petitioner committed a serious offence and therefore the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C may not be exercised in this case.
6. I considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has got a contention that, even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted, no offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act will attract, I have to consider that point also. For deciding the case, it will be better to extract Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
7. A reading of Section 67 of the Information Act, 2000 it is clear that 'or' is used in between 'lascivious', 'appeal to the prurient interest' and '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.' Therefore, these are not ingredients to constitute the offence but these are distinct offences. A person committed any of this act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act is attracted. For clarity, the following acts are amounts to an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
8. Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which is:-
(ii) Appeal to the prurient interest.
(iii) 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.
9. Therefore, if any of the above acts are committed by a person, an offence under Section 67 o
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.