HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
AKHIL JOHNY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 420/2024
[Criminal Law] - [Quashing of Proceedings] - [PoCSO Act, IT Act] - [The court quashed proceedings against the accused due to lack of evidence showing intention to share or transmit child pornography, emphasizing that mere possession without intent does not constitute an offense under the relevant sections of the PoCSO Act and IT Act.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a child pornography case, sought to quash the proceedings based on allegations of possessing pornographic materials without intent to share or transmit them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence indicating that the petitioner intentionally downloaded or shared child pornography, leading to the conclusion that the charges under the PoCSO Act and IT Act were not substantiated.
Issues: Whether the mere possession of child pornography without intent to share or transmit constitutes an offense under the PoCSO Act and IT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that possession alone, without the intention to share or transmit, does not constitute an offense under Section 15(1) of the PoCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed all proceedings against the petitioner.
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2024 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 67 B(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 reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 433 : 2024 KER 35968] and Akash Vijay v. State of Kerala reported in [2024 KHC OnLine 494 : 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:
9. Reading the provision, it is emphatically clear that storing or possessing pornographic materials in any form involving a child and failure to delete or destroy or report the same to the designated authority, as may be prescribed, with an intention to share or transmit child pornography, shall be an offence. So mere storing or possessing pornographic material is not an offence under S.15(1) of POCSO Act, if the said storing or possession is without any intention to share or transmit the same. Therefore, mere storing or possessing pornographic materials by it
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.