top lawyer near you for cyber crime, civil and criminal case

 

Justice A Badharudeen

Shantheeshlal T

Vs.

State of Kerala,Ors

                                     

Case Numbers : Crl.M.C. No. 2048 of 2024

In Crime No. 911 of 2020 of Payyannur Police Station, the sole accused, charged under Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the final report, arguing that the prosecution records did not substantiate the alleged offences.

The Court, after hearing both the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and examining the case records, found no evidence that the accused shared, transmitted, or published the pornographic material involving a child. The mere possession of such material without intent to share or transmit does not constitute an offence under Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act. Similarly, under Section 67B of the IT Act, there was no proof that the accused intentionally downloaded, browsed, or recorded the material.

The Court referenced previous rulings, including Manuel Benny v. State of Kerala, which emphasized that accidental or automatic downloading without intent is not punishable under Section 67B. The materials found on the accused’s device did not demonstrate intentional wrongdoing. Consequently, the Court concluded that the offences alleged were not prima facie made out and allowed the petition, quashing the final report and all further proceedings.