IMPORTANT POINT
The non-obstante clause in Section 19 of the POCSO Act mandates reporting of offences without excluding the applicability of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for public servants acting in their official capacity.

JUDGMENT :

K. BABU, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in S.C. No. 811/2020 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur. The petitioner is the former chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, Thrissur. He functioned as such for a period from 2009 to 2019. He has been arrayed as accused No. 2 (Crime No. 1130/2019 of Ollur Police Station) in the Sessions Case.

2. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 450, 354(A), 376(2)(l), 376(2)(i) and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4, 3(b), 6, 5(k), 12 read with Section 11 (iii) and Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 2, alleging the offence under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act for non-reporting of the matter to the police.

3. The incident came to light after many years while the victim was sexually abused by an auto driver for which Crime No. 1028/2019 was registered. In that crime, the provisions of the POCSO Act were not included as the victim had attained 19 years on the date of the second crime.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had not reported the incident to the police, when it was informed to him in 2014.

5. The allegation in the present crime is that accused No. 1 had shown the victim porn videos digitally and committed penetrative sexual assault on her.

6. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(A) The petitioner had duly intimated the matter to the police. He had informed the matter to the police over the phone and made an endorsement in the relevant file “directed to police” 06.02.2014.

(B) The CWC got information regarding the incident only on 05.02.2014. The petitioner reported the matter to the police on the very next day.

(C) During 2014, in the office of the CWC, infrastructure like internet facilities, secretarial staff, etc. were not available. The petitioner himself would do all the typing work on his personal computer. In the present case, the petitioner himself prepared a letter directing the police and transferred to the CWC for necessary action.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

(i) The petitioner had directly informed the matter to the police over the phone and also taken steps to report the matter to the police.

(ii) Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required to initiate the prosecution as the alleged act was committed during the course of his official functions.

8. This Court appointed Advocate Sri. M.K. Sreegesh as Amicus Curiae.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae extensively addressed arguments on the subject. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that principles governing the interpretation of the non-obstante clause in Section 19 of the POCSO Act are to be ascertained keeping in mind the objects of the acts. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the best interest and well-being of the child are the relevant factors of paramount importance while constructing Section 19 of the POCSO Act so as to see whether sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is required when the prosecution alleges that any public servant failed to report offences under the POCSO Act that came to his/her notice. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that being a child Centric legislation, the legislative mandate is intended to overcome the tendency of non-reporting of the incident to protect the child.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-obstante clause in Section 19 of the POCSO Act does not exclude the applicability of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for an offence committed under Chapter V of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reporting the information relating to the offence under the POCSO Act does not come under an act in the private capacity of the public servant.

11. The learned Amicus Curiae, relying on the relevant provisions in the POCSO Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, submitted that the non-obstante clause in