Bengaluru: The Karnataka High court has quashed proceedings against a person stating that watching pornography material would not attract section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Section punishes those persons who would publish, transmit the material depicting children in sexually explicit acts in electronic form.
The petitioner is a resident of Hoskote town in Bengaluru district. Based on an alert in the CyberTipline that he was watching a website, which holds in it pornographic material of children, a complaint was registered against the petitioner. The complaint led to registration of a crime by the CEN police on May 3, 2023, about two months after the incident, for offence punishable under section 67B of the IT Act.
The petitioner argued that section 67B of the IT Act is not even attracted in the case at hand. According to him, he was only viewing a pornographic website on his mobile for about 50 minutes and the allegation is that he had viewed child pornography. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is somewhat a porn addict and never intends to circulate anything but was only viewing the website. On the other hand, the government advocate argued that the petitioner had indulged in watching child pornography and such things should not be permitted to be continued.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the soul of the provision, section 67B, is publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts. “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. At best, as contended, the petitioner could be a porn addict, who has watched pornographic material. Nothing beyond this is alleged against the petitioner,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court further said, “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.”