MP High Court Dismisses State's 'Mindless' Appeal, Imposes Rs. 20,000 Cost for Ignoring POCSO Act Provisions

Jabalpur, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke to the State's legal machinery, dismissing a criminal appeal as "filed without application of mind" and imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 to be recovered from the responsible officials. The bench, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ramkumar Choubey, also ordered a departmental inquiry against the officers who sanctioned the "mechanically prepared" appeal without understanding the basic provisions of the POCSO Act .

The decision came in an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against a trial court judgment that had convicted one Shashikant Jogi for offences under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Background of the Case

The case, The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shashikant Jogi , originated from a judgment dated January 24, 2023, by the Special Judge ( POCSO Act ) in Tikamgarh. The trial court found the accused, Shashikant Jogi, guilty under Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC (repeated rape on the same woman) and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

However, the trial court sentenced Jogi only under the POCSO Act , imposing a rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000. The State government, aggrieved by this, filed an appeal before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

The State's argument, presented by the Government Advocate, was narrow and specific: the trial court had erred by not imposing a separate sentence under Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC, despite recording a conviction under that section.

High Court's Scrutiny and Legal Reasoning

The High Court, led by Justice Vivek Agarwal, immediately turned its attention to a fundamental provision of the POCSO Act that the State's counsel had seemingly overlooked: ** Section 42 **, which deals with "Alternate Punishment."

The Court pointed out that Section 42 of the POCSO Act , 2012, explicitly states:

> "Where an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under... the Indian Penal Code ... the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment only under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code as provides for punishment which is greater in degree. "

The bench then compared the punishments prescribed under the two relevant laws:

- Section 376(2)(N) IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment.

- ** Section 6 POCSO Act :** Rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, which may extend to life imprisonment or death.

The Court noted that the punishment under the POCSO Act was clearly "higher in degree" than that under the IPC. Therefore, the trial court was correct in sentencing the accused only under the POCSO Act , in full compliance with Section 42 .

In a sharp critique of the State's handling of the appeal, Justice Agarwal observed:

> "...it is apparent that, learned counsel who prepared the memo of appeal, did not bother to even go through the basic provisions of the POCSO Act and mechanically prepared the appeal, therefore, appeal having been filed without application of mind deserves to fail and is dismissed."

Final Decision and Strict Directives

The High Court not only dismissed the appeal but also took punitive and corrective measures to address the procedural lapse.

• Dismissal of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed for being meritless and filed without due diligence.
• Imposition of Costs: A cost of Rs. 20,000 was imposed on the State "for bothering the system without there being any justification." The Court explicitly directed that this amount should not be paid from the public exchequer but must be recovered from the "delinquent official" responsible for the error.
• Departmental Inquiry: The Court ordered a comprehensive inquiry against the Law Officer who sanctioned the appeal and the DPO/AGP who opined on its filing. It directed the Chief Secretary of the Law and Legislative Department (or the Registrar General if the officer is from the judicial service) to conduct a departmental inquiry, punish the delinquent officer, and submit an Action Taken Report in a sealed cover within 60 days.

This judgment serves as a powerful precedent on the application of Section 42 of the POCSO Act and a stern warning to government departments against filing frivolous or ill-conceived litigation that wastes precious judicial time.