Storing Child Sexual Abuse Material On Mobile Can Attract POCSO & IT Act Offences, Even Without Transmission: Karnataka High Court
Iterating the precedents laid down by the apex court, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea to quash the criminal proceedings against a 38-year-old man who allegedly stored sexually exploitative content of children in his mobile phone.“…it is not transmission alone, but even storage of child pornographic content which has the capacity of being transmitted, which would become...
Iterating the precedents laid down by the apex court, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea to quash the criminal proceedings against a 38-year-old man who allegedly stored sexually exploitative content of children in his mobile phone.
“…it is not transmission alone, but even storage of child pornographic content which has the capacity of being transmitted, which would become an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act”, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted in the order after hearing the criminal petition.
The court pointed out that the petitioner has admitted to his own act of storing sexually explicit pictures and videos of children. Actual transmission of said content is not a prerequisite ingredient under Section 15 of the POCSO Act, the court added.
For context, Section 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) punishes the storage, possession, or transmission of child pornographic material. Section 67 B of the IT Act is primarily concerned with the punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts, etc., in electronic form.
When done with the intention of transmitting or disseminating the stored abusive content, such act falls within the ambit of an 'inchoate' offence and Section 15 of the POCSO Act would spring into action even without actual transmission or sharing of such content, the single judge bench noted by relying on apex court decision in Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728.
“…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 court clarified.
The petitioner, a resident of Thrissur, Kerala, sought to quash a Special Case No. 2119/2025 arising from Cr. No. 1 /2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 15 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The State submitted that the mobile phone of the accused petitioner contained sexually explicit material of children as seen from the forensic examination.
The petitioner, one of the several accused in the crime, submitted that mere storage of such content without actual dissemination wouldn't amount to the offences alleged against him in the FIR and chargesheet.
Rejecting the contention, the Court said, "The petitioner has admittedly stored sexually explicit pictures and videos of children, which would amount to storage of child pornography under Section 15 of the POCSO Act. Merely because the petitioner has not transmitted anything from his phone would not mean that he would not be liable for the ingredients of the said offence."
Adv. Deenabandhu Rai appeared for the petitioner-accused and Adv. Vinay Mahadevaiah appeared for the state as the Government Advocate.
Case Title: Binoj P J v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17142 OF 2025