Mere Storage of Child Pornography Constitutes Punishable Offense Under POCSO and IT Act: High Court of Karnataka - 2026-01-12

Court Cases & Legal News.

Digital Footprints: Why Mere Possession of Child Pornography Is a Crime

In a significant ruling clarifying the boundaries of digital exploitation laws, the High Court of Karnataka has rejected a plea by an accused to quash criminal proceedings involving the storage of child pornography. Justice M. Nagaprasanna affirmed that the mere possession and storage of such material on a device constitutes a serious criminal offense, even absent proof of circulation or transmission.

The Spark of Investigation

The petitioner, Binoj P.J., found himself in the crosshairs of law enforcement following an unrelated investigation. During a forensic examination of his mobile phone, authorities discovered a large collection of sexually explicit pictures and videos of children. Consequently, a complaint was registered against him under Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act and Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Arguments at the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the content was merely stored on the device and never circulated. He contended that, without actual transmission, the ingredients for an offense under the IT and POCSO Acts were not met.

The State, however, maintained that the severity of child sexual abuse necessitates a strict interpretation of these laws, emphasizing that the legislative intent behind the 2019 amendments to the POCSO Act was to treat the storage of such material as an independent, punishable offense.

The Doctrine of Inchoate Crimes

The Court’s decision rested on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024) . The Court categorized the storage of child pornography as an "inchoate crime"—an offense that is deemed complete by the intention and preparation to commit a larger act, even if the final result (transmission) has not yet occurred.

The Court highlighted that Section 15 of the POCSO Act is designed to deter the sexual exploitation of children by making the very act of possessing and failing to report such materials a punishable offense.

Key Observations

• "What is sought to be penalized under Section 15 of the POCSO is the storage or possession of any child pornographic material when done with a particular intention or purpose... it is the intention which is being punished and not the commission of any criminal act in the traditional sense."
• "The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment in unambiguous terms holds that possession or storage of pornographic material involving a child would attract the rigours of Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15 of the POCSO Act."
• "Merely because the petitioner has not transmitted anything from his phone would not mean that he would not be liable for the ingredients of the said offence."

A Stand Against Child Exploitation

The High Court emphasized that the law does not require the presence of child pornography to be ongoing at the time of the FIR to constitute a crime; rather, any substantiated evidence of past storage is sufficient.

By rejecting this petition, Justice Nagaprasanna has reinforced that courts will not interpret statutes narrowly when the protection of children is at stake. The petitioner must now face a full-blown trial to address the allegations, as the Court found no merit in intervening at this stage, particularly after charges have already been framed. This judgment reinforces a proactive judicial stance against the proliferating threat of online child sexual content, ensuring that "digital possession" acts as a clear deterrent against potential further abuse.