Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Necessity of Compliance with Section 67B of the IT and Abkari Acts - Strict adherence to procedural formalities under Section 67B is essential for the validity of confiscation or prosecution. The law mandates that before confiscation or initiating proceedings, authorities must follow specific procedures, including issuing proper notices, obtaining prior permission from competent courts or authorities, and ensuring that only authorized officers perform these functions ["Sathyan VS State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala"] ["Sathyan, S/o. Vasudevan Thayyil Veedu VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"].
Authorized Officers and Legal Formalities - Only officers specifically authorized by the government, such as Assistant Commissioners of Excise or officers notified under Section 4 of the respective Acts, can discharge functions under Section 67B or 67C. Production of seized properties before unauthorized officers or failure to follow formalities renders proceedings invalid ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Sathyan VS State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala"] ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"].
Importance of Notice and Opportunity to Respond - Section 67C emphasizes that no confiscation order can be made unless the person from whom property is seized is given a written notice explaining grounds for confiscation and an opportunity for personal hearing. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement invalidates confiscation orders ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Sathyan, S/o. Vasudevan Thayyil Veedu VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"].
Discretion and Judicial Oversight - The law provides for discretion in confiscation proceedings, but this discretion must be exercised within the bounds of procedural legality. Courts have held that procedural violations, such as seizing property without proper authority or failing to serve adequate notices, justify quashing proceedings ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Sathyan VS State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
Court's Role and Oversight - Courts have consistently emphasized that statutory formalities, including prior permission, proper authorization, and adequate notices, are mandatory. Failure to adhere to these procedural safeguards can lead to quashing of proceedings and orders, highlighting the necessity of strict compliance to uphold legality ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Sathyan, S/o. Vasudevan Thayyil Veedu VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Compliance with Section 67B of the IT and Abkari Acts is not merely procedural but fundamental to the legality of confiscation and prosecution. Only authorized officers following prescribed formalities—such as issuing notices, obtaining prior permissions, and acting within their jurisdiction—can validly initiate and execute proceedings. Violations of these procedures, including production of seized properties before unauthorized officers or neglecting statutory notices, render proceedings invalid and liable to be quashed. Therefore, strict adherence to the procedural requirements under Section 67B is necessary to uphold the rule of law and ensure the legitimacy of confiscation and related actions ["Shantheeshlal T. S/o Surendran P. VS State of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Sathyan VS State Of Kerala Represented By The Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
In the digital age, cybercrimes involving child exploitation have surged, making Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, a cornerstone of legal enforcement. This provision targets the publishing, transmitting, or downloading of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts. But what is the necessity of complying with Section 67B IT Act? A critical aspect often overlooked is the admissibility of electronic evidence, which hinges on a specific procedural requirement.
This blog post delves into why strict compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is indispensable for prosecutions under Section 67B. Drawing from key judicial precedents, we'll explore the mandatory nature of the 65B certificate, its implications, and practical guidance. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 67B punishes anyone who:- Publishes or transmits material in electronic form depicting children in sexually explicit acts;- Creates, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges, or distributes such material.
As outlined in various judgments, Section 67B of the IT Act also, the same provides as under: 67B Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1470. This section often intersects with Section 15(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for storage with intent to share. However, mere possession without intent to share or transmit does not constitute an offence under POCSO or IT Act, as courts have quashed proceedings where no evidence of sharing existed Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1470.
Electronic evidence—like videos, images, or downloads—is central to these cases. Yet, its courtroom reliability depends on proper certification.
For electronic records to be admissible, a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is a condition precedent. The law mandates that this certificate accompany the evidence, verifying its authenticity and chain of custody. Without it, courts cannot rely on digital proof to establish a Section 67B offence ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405.
Key judicial finding: Certificate required under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405. This applies strictly to cases under Section 67B, ensuring tamper-proof evidence in sensitive child pornography prosecutions.
Courts emphasize strict compliance—mere application for the certificate or substantial compliance won't suffice. The law emphasizes strict compliance with this requirement; mere application for the certificate or substantial compliance is insufficient ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405.
In scenarios where the certificate issuer (e.g., a third party) refuses or delays, parties must seek court intervention: In a fact circumstance where requisite certificate has been applied for from person or authority concerned, and person or authority either refuses to give such certificate, or does not reply to such demand, party asking for such certificate can apply to Court for its production under provisions aforementioned of Evidence Act ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405. Even then, the obligation remains mandatory unless relieved by judicial order.
Absence of the 65B certificate can derail cases: Electronic evidence becomes inadmissible, weakening the prosecution's foundation and potentially leading to quashing of proceedings ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405. Courts have consistently upheld this, noting that without such a certificate, electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove an offence under Section 67B ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405.
This rigor protects against fabricated digital evidence while challenging investigators to secure certification early. In bail or quashing petitions, lack of proper evidence often favors the accused, as seen in cases where proceedings were quashed for insufficient intent proof under Section 67B and POCSO Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1470.
Judicial consistency reinforces these rules. The Supreme Court has directed: In cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by concerned person, Judge conducting trial must summon person/persons referred to in Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405.
Other cases highlight nuances:- Intent Requirement: Possession of child pornography without intent to share or transmit does not constitute an offence under the PoCSO Act and IT Act Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1470. Courts quashed FIRs lacking transmission evidence (Paras 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13) Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1470.- Bail Considerations: In a case under Section 67B and POCSO Sections 14/15, bail was granted post-custody, considering no prior criminal history and investigation progress Kaviyarasu VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 454.- Investigation Needs: For allegations like uploading videos potentially depicting child exploitation, custodial interrogation may be needed to probe Section 67B(d) offences Fathima A. S. , W/o. Manoj VS State Of Kerala - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 415.- Quashing Petitions: Multiple instances show petitions to quash Section 67B proceedings succeeding if evidence thresholds aren't met Mr. Giddela Naveen vs The State of Telangana through SHO Bachannapet Police Station Bachannapet Mandal Jangaon Distr - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 659Mr. Giddela Naveen vs The State of Telangana through SHO Bachannapet Police Station Bachannapet Mandal Jangaon Distr - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 1467BEGARI RAO alias BEGARI VIJAY VARDHAN RAO vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 1690.
These rulings underscore that while Section 67B is robust, procedural lapses like missing 65B certificates can invalidate cases.
Unrelated Contexts: Note that some Section 67B references pertain to the Kerala Abkari Act (liquor confiscation), which is distinct from IT Act provisions and irrelevant here.
To navigate Section 67B cases effectively:- Prosecutors/Investigators: Obtain valid 65B certificates before filing charges. Document all procurement efforts.- Courts: Insist on certificates; summon issuers if needed.- Defense: Challenge uncertified evidence early to potentially quash proceedings.- General Best Practices: Train cyber cells on Evidence Act procedures; use tamper-evident tech for records.
Proactive compliance fortifies cases, especially given the gravity of child protection laws.
Compliance with Section 67B IT Act necessitates producing a Section 65B certificate as a mandatory condition for electronic evidence admissibility. Courts' strict stance ensures justice while safeguarding against unreliable proof ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405.
Key Takeaways:- 65B certificate is a prerequisite—no exceptions for good faith alone.- Impacts prosecution viability; bolsters defenses lacking it.- Intent to transmit is crucial beyond mere possession Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1470.
Stay informed on evolving cyber laws. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts. Protecting children online demands procedural precision.
References: Primary insights from ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405, supplemented by Akhil Johny VS State of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1470, Kaviyarasu VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 454, Fathima A. S. , W/o. Manoj VS State Of Kerala - 2020 Supreme(Ker) 415, Mr. Giddela Naveen vs The State of Telangana through SHO Bachannapet Police Station Bachannapet Mandal Jangaon Distr - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 659, Mr. Giddela Naveen vs The State of Telangana through SHO Bachannapet Police Station Bachannapet Mandal Jangaon Distr - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 1467, BEGARI RAO alias BEGARI VIJAY VARDHAN RAO vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 1690.
#ITAct #Section67B #CyberLaw
Therefore, the offence under Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act is not made out in the instant case. 10. Coming to Section 67B of the IT Act also, the same provides as under: 67B. ... The sole accused in Crime No. 911 of 2020 of Payyannur Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 15(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 67B of the Information Technology #HL_ST....
Coming to S.67B of the IT Act also, the same provides as under: 67B Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form: Whoever: (a) publishes or transmits or causes ... 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’ hereina....
The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act. ... of the Information Technology Act. ... ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.223 of 2025 of Bachannapet Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offence under Section 67B
The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act. ... of the Information Technology Act. ... ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.223 of 2025 of Bachannapet Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offence under Section 67B
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR.No.774 of 2025, on the file of Chevella Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 67b
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Ext.P7 order under section 67B of the Abkari Act was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. The vehicle was confiscated to Government invoking the power under 67B (2) of the Abkari Act. ... It is stated therein that while passing orders under section 67B of the Abkari Act and thereafter at the appellate stage the petitioner was issued with notice of hearing and at both the stages the petitioner's counsel was heard prior to the....
Section 67B of the Act provides for confiscation of a vehicle only when an offence under the Act is committed in respect of or by means of the same. ... of the Act. ... The ofÏcer who seized and detained the vehicle later produced the same before the second respondent, the competent authority under Section 67B of the Act for initiating proceedings for confiscation for having used the vehicle for committing the offences alleged. ... Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by the lear....
by the officer under Sec.67B or under the Rules. ... However, since the time granted for complying with condition No.2 in Ext.P2 has expired, time is extended for a further period of 20 days from today, to comply with the said condition. ... of this Act." ... It is also urged that Sec.53B of the Act has no relevance at all after the competent officer passed an order either under Sec.67B or the Rules temporarily releasing the vehicle. Moreover, it is also contended that, such a situation is taken care o....
by the officer under Sec.67B or under the Rules. ... However, since the time granted for complying with condition No.2 in Ext.P2 has expired, time is extended for a further period of 20 days from today, to comply with the said condition. ... However, on reading the said provision further, it can be seen that the order passed by the Court or the authorized officer shall not prevent the authorized officer from taking or continuing action under Sec.67B of the Act. ... of this Act.” ... It is also urged tha....
He produced the properties before the Deputy Excise Commissioner under Section 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act, and produced the accused in Court. ... The Government of Kerala has issued a notification authorising Assistant Excise Commissioners, as authorised officers under Section 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act. Here, the properties were produced before a wrong officer by the Excise Inspector. ... There is yet another infirmity that instead of producing the properties before the Assistant Excise Commissioner who is the auth....
Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is extracted hereunder: 15. Similarly, Section 67B (d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is also alleged against the petitioner. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc; in electronic form.
Section 67B of the Information Technology Act is as under: Section 67B Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form Whoever- (a) publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct; or (b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexual....
The said provision read with Section 67A and 67B is a complete code relating to the offences that are covered under the IT Act. Having noted the provisions, it has to be recapitulated that Section 67 clearly stipulates punishment for publishing, transmitting obscene materials in electronic form. Section 79, as has been interpreted, is an exemption provision conferring protection to the individuals. However, the said protection has been expanded in the dictum of Shreya Singhal (supra) and we concur with the same.
However, the said protection has been expanded in the dictum of Shreya Singhal (supra) and we concur with the same. The said provision read with Section 67A and 67B is a complete code relating to the offences that are covered under the IT Act. Having noted the provisions, it has to be recapitulated that Section 67 clearly stipulates punishment for publishing, transmitting obscene materials in electronic form. However, the said protection has been expanded in the dictum of Shreya Singhal (supra) and we concur with the same. Having noted the provisions, it has to be recapitul....
S 67B which was inserted by Act 24 of 1975 provides: Power is also given to Abkari Officers to order the confiscation in certain circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
