The Karnataka High Court ruled that the offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act applies not only to transmitting child pornographic material but also to storing such material when there is potential for its transmission. The Court made this observation while hearing a plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 15 of the POCSO Act.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the offense under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) is applicable not only when child pornographic material is transmitted but also when such material is stored with the potential for transmission.
This ruling came in response to a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 15 of the POCSO Act.
A Single Judge Bench, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S Harish (2024), stating,
“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. The Apex Court further holds that Section 15 of the POCSO Act is in the nature and form of an inchoate offence, which also penalizes the mere storage or possession of child pornographic material when done with the specific intent to share or transmit, without requiring any actual transmission or dissemination, since the intention must be determined from the manner in which such material is stored or possessed and the circumstances in which the same was not deleted, destroyed or reported.”
The case originated from criminal proceedings initiated after the seizure of an electronic device during a separate investigation.
Forensic analysis of this device reportedly revealed multiple digital images and videos containing sexually explicit material involving children. Based on this discovery, a new case was registered under the provisions of both the Information Technology Act and the POCSO Act.
The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings, arguing that the material was only stored on the device and had not been transmitted, shared, or circulated.
The petitioner contended that the lack of any allegation of transmission or dissemination implies that the elements of the alleged offenses under the relevant laws were not met.
However, the State opposed the petition, arguing that the law criminalizes not only the distribution but also the storage or possession of child pornographic materials under certain conditions.
In its analysis, the Court explored the implications of Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act while considering the Supreme Court’s interpretation of these laws.
The Court acknowledged that the Supreme Court clarified that Section 15 of the POCSO Act addresses the storage or possession of child pornographic material when accompanied by the requisite intent. It characterized this provision as an inchoate offense focusing on preparatory actions related to child exploitation offenses.
The Court pointed out that the legislative framework accounts for varying forms of liability based on the intent behind the storage or possession of such material, and it noted that actual transmission or dissemination is not a prerequisite for prosecution.
It emphasized that the offense could apply even if the material is merely stored on a device with transmission capabilities, as long as the circumstances indicate the requisite intent specified in the law.
ALSO READ: Second-Highest in the Country: Report Highlights Delhi’s Disposal Rate for POCSO Cases
After considering the evidence presented, the Court concluded that the allegations satisfied the necessary elements of the offenses charged, and thus, the proceedings could not be halted at this stage.
It decided against quashing the criminal proceedings, stating that there was no justification for intervention since charges had been framed and the matter had progressed to the evidentiary phase.
The Court observed that the petitioner would have the chance to present his defense during the trial.
Case Title: Binoj P.J. v. State of Karnataka Commercial Street Police Station (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:1635)
Click Here To Read More Reports on POCSO
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
