IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Akhil Johny – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 420 of 2024
Decided On : 19-07-2024
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 15(1) - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67B - Quashment of proceedings sought under Section 482 CrPC - Allegations of downloading and possessing child pornography - Mere possession without intention to share or transmit does not constitute an offence under the PoCSO Act - No evidence of sharing or transmitting found. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Court's findings - The court held that the absence of intention to share or transmit child pornography negates the offence under the relevant sections of the law. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of downloading child pornography but claimed no intention to share or transmit the material. The court found no evidence supporting the allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the proceedings as the allegations did not meet the legal threshold for the offences charged.
Issues: The main issue was whether mere possession of child pornography without intent to share constitutes an offence under the PoCSO Act and IT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that intention to share or transmit is essential for establishing an offence under the PoCSO Act and IT Act, and mere possession is insufficient. (Paras 9, 12)
Result: Crl. M.C. allowed; all proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No. 965/2020 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, now pending as S.C. No. 2426/2022 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the PoCSO Act’ hereinafter), Thiruvananthapuram and the prayer herein is as under:
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant materials available.
3. The prosecution allegation as narrated in FIR is that, the accused, with intention to download and share child pornography in the computer, mobile phone and hard disk owned by him, visited child pornography websites on his desktop computer and downloaded child pornography video files to his mobile phone and hard disk. This is the base on which, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 15(1) of the PoCSO Act and Section 67B(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘the IT Act’ hereinafter).
4. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who sought quashment of the proceedings, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the entire allegations are without any iota of truth. He would also submit that the prosecution allegation is only confined to that of presence of porn videos in the mobile phone and hard disk owned by the accused and that no materials are available to show that the petitioner had either shared, transmitted or published the video, in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court considered the same issue in its earlier decisions. The learned counsel has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Shantheeshlal T. v. State of Kerala, 2024 KER 35968 and Akash Vijay v. State of Kerala, 2024 KER 42626, to buttress his contention.
5. Strongly opposing quashment of the proceedings, where the offences alleged are specifically made out, prima facie, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, Annexure A3 FSL Report shows that the hard disk of the accused was used to visit pornographic websites including child pornographic websites, and large volumes of obscene images and video files were retrieved from the phone memory of the mobile phone of the accused. Therefore, quashment as sought for, is liable to be rejected.
6. On perusal of the prosecution records, no materials collected during investigation to show that the petitioner intentionally downloaded or browsed or recorded the same and there are no materials available to show that the petitioner had either shared, transmitted or published the video, in any manner. The allegation is confined to that of presence of porn videos in the mobile phone and hard disk owned by the accused alone.
7. In the decision of this Court in Shantheeshlal’s case (supra), this Court considered the essentials to constitute the offence punishable under Section 15(1) of the PoCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act and in paragraph Nos. 9 to 13 of the said decision it is held as under:
Possession of child pornography without intent to share or transmit does not constitute an offence under the PoCSO Act and IT Act.
Automatic or accidental downloading of pornographic material involving children is not an offense under Section 67B of the IT Act if specific intention is not established.
Possession of child pornographic material requires proof of intent to transmit; mere downloading without intent does not constitute an offence under applicable laws.
Intentional downloading of material is necessary to attract the offence under Section 67B of the IT Act.
Quashing of charges requires substantial evidence; mere allegations without proof are insufficient to continue legal proceedings.
The discharge application stage does not permit a mini trial, and the focus should be on whether there are grounds for presuming that the offence has been committed.
(1) Child Pornography – Sexual exploitation of children is a pervasive and deeply rooted issue that has plagued societies worldwide and has been a matter of serious concern in India – Increasing inci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the interpretation of Section 15 of the POCSO Act before and after the amendme....
Important points:The alleged publication of the photograph of the 2nd respondent during the time of the inaugural function of the Jewellery is admittedly, by itself cannot be said to be in any manner....
Serious offences under the POCSO Act cannot be quashed based on compromise or victim's affidavit, reaffirming the need for societal protection.
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.