“We judges are human and not infallible. To continue with an erroneous decision after realizing a mistake is not an act of heroism.”Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court recently reversed its earlier ruling, where it had initially held that merely viewing child pornography online was not an offense.
READ ALSO: “Minor Can Face Charges Under POCSO Act”: Kerala High Court
On July 10, Justice M. Nagaprasanna had dismissed the criminal charges against Inayathulla N, arguing that viewing such material did not constitute the act of publishing or transmitting it under the Information Technology (IT) Act. The Court’s earlier decision had been based on Section 67B(a) of the IT Act, which addresses the transmission or publication of child pornography.
On July 19, the judge revisited the decision, acknowledging an oversight regarding Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
The judge admitted,
“This court had passed the order without considering Section 67B(b), which constitutes an error.”
The Court further remarked that judges are not immune to mistakes:
“We judges are human and not infallible. To continue with an erroneous decision after realizing a mistake is not an act of heroism.”
The Court had previously stated,
“The allegation against the petitioner is that he merely viewed a pornographic website. In our view, this does not constitute publishing or transmitting material as required under Section 67B of the IT Act. At most, the petitioner could be considered a porn addict, but no further allegations are made against him. When comparing the facts to the criteria necessary to establish a violation under Section 67B, it is clear that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.”
The State argued that the Court had dismissed the proceedings based solely on Section 67B(a) of the IT Act, which addresses the transmission and publication of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts.
However, Section 67B(b) of the Act also criminalizes the creation, collection, seeking, browsing, and downloading of such material. The Court acknowledged that it had overlooked this subsection.
Justice Nagaprasanna stated,
“Sub-section (b) of Section 67B is relevant to this case. Since the earlier proceedings were dismissed without considering this provision, it necessitates the recall of the previous order.”
The Court also dismissed the petitioner’s counsel’s argument that the order could not be recalled or reviewed once passed.
The Court clarified,
“This argument is not valid, as Section 482 of the CrPC allows for inherent powers that cannot be restricted by Section 362 of the CrPC.”
Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that judges are human and can make mistakes. The Court noted that continuing to uphold the incorrect order would not be a wise decision. As such, the Court rescinded its previous ruling, allowing further investigation into the case.
READ ALSO: POCSO Case | Former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa Appears Before CID
The petitioner’s counsel had argued against the recall of the order, claiming that it was not permissible once passed. However, the Court found that inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could not be limited by Section 362 of the CrPC.
As a result, the Karnataka High Court permitted further investigation and recalled its previous decision.
Case Title: Inayatullah N V. State of Karnataka
