Watching Child Pornography Online Will Not Attract Offence U/S 67B Of IT Act: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person watching child pornography material online cannot be charged for an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed proceedings initiated against one Inayathulla N and said, “The allegation against the petitioner is that he has watched a pornographic website. This, in...
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person watching child pornography material online cannot be charged for an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed proceedings initiated against one Inayathulla N and said, “The allegation against the petitioner is that he has watched a pornographic website. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not become publishing or transmitting of material, as is necessary under Section 67B of the IT Act.”
As per the complaint registered by the CEN police station, on 23.03.2022 the accused between 3:50 p.m. to 4:40 p.m, had viewed a website, which holds in it pornographic material of children. The complaint came to be registered on 03.05.2023 after about two months on the aforesaid incident. for offence punishable under Section 67B of the Act.
The petitioner contended that he was a porn addict and never intends to circulate anything, as he was himself only viewing the existing website. The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that petitioner has admittedly indulged in watching child pornography. Therefore, such things should not be permitted to be continued.
Referring to Section 67B of the Act, which punishes those persons who would publish, transmit the material depicting children in sexually explicit acts in electronic form. The court said “The soul of the provision is publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts.”
Following which it held “At best, as contended, the petitioner could be a porn addict, who has watched pornographic material. Nothing beyond this, is alleged against the petitioner. If the facts are pitted against the ingredients necessary to drive home Section 67B of the IT Act, what would unmistakably emerge is, further proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued, as it would become an abuse of process of law.”
Accordingly it allowed the petition.
Appearance: Advocate S Jagan Babu for Petitioner.
HCGP Harish Ganapathi for Respondent
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
Case Title: Inayathulla N AND State By Police Sub Inspector
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13141 OF 2023
Click Here To Read/Download Order