14 March 2026 Legal Updates

Possession of Child Pornography in Mobile Phone Itself Can Attract Liability Under POCSO & IT Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that mere possession or storage of child pornographic material in a mobile phone can constitute an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act, depending on the intention inferred from the circumstances.

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Binoj P. J. v State of Karnataka

(b) Court:

• High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

(c) Bench:

• Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, Binoj P. J., aged 38, was one of the accused in an unrelated criminal case. During investigation in that case, the police seized his mobile phone and sent it for forensic examination.
• During the forensic analysis, investigators discovered a large number of child pornographic images and videos stored on the petitioner’s phone. Based on this discovery, a separate criminal case was registered against the petitioner for offences under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
• The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, arguing that he had only stored the videos and had not circulated or transmitted them.

Issues Raised

• Whether mere possession or storage of child pornographic material in a mobile phone constitutes an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act?
• Whether criminal proceedings under Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15 of the POCSO Act can be quashed merely because the accused had not circulated the material?
• Whether storage of such material without proof of distribution is sufficient to attract criminal liability?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued that he only stored the images and videos in his phone.
• He contended that no evidence existed showing that he circulated, transmitted, or distributed the material.
• Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 67B IT Act and Section 15 POCSO Act were not satisfied.
• On this basis, he sought quashing of the charge sheet and criminal proceedings.

Contentions of the Respondent (State)

• The State argued that the forensic report clearly showed numerous child pornographic images and videos in the petitioner’s mobile phone.
• The presence of such material prima facie attracted offences under the IT Act and POCSO Act.
• The State submitted that the issue of intention and the extent of liability must be determined during trial, not at the stage of quashing.
• Therefore, the petition seeking quashing of proceedings should be dismissed.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Interpretation of Section 15 of the POCSO Act

The Court explained that Section 15 of the POCSO Act deals with storage and possession of child pornographic material.

The provision is divided into three different offences depending on the degree of intention (mens rea).

The Court clarified that:

• Section 15(1) deals with storage or possession of child pornographic material without deletion or reporting.
• Section 15(2) applies when the material is stored with intent to transmit, display or distribute.
• Section 15(3) applies when such material is used for commercial or monetary gain.

These are distinct offences and cannot coexist simultaneously.

2. Possession Can Indicate Criminal Intention

The Court held that:

• In certain cases, the manner of storage itself may indicate an intention to distribute or propagate the material.
• Therefore, mere possession cannot automatically be considered innocent.
• The circumstances surrounding possession must be examined during trial.

3. Quashing Not Appropriate at Initial Stage

The Court held that:

• At the stage of quashing proceedings, the court only examines whether a prima facie case exists.
• Since the forensic report revealed numerous child pornographic files in the petitioner’s device, there was sufficient material to proceed with trial.
• Therefore, the High Court cannot evaluate detailed evidence at this stage.

Final Verdict

• The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings.
• It held that the presence of child pornography in the petitioner’s mobile phone raises a prima facie case under the IT Act and POCSO Act.
• The Court ruled that the issue of intention and liability must be determined during trial.
• Accordingly, the criminal petition was dismissed.

Legal Principles Established

1. Section 15 of the POCSO Act – Offences Relating to Child Pornography

Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 criminalises possession, storage, and distribution of child pornography.

a. Section 15(1)

• Punishes possession or storage of child pornographic material without deleting or reporting it.
• Key point: Even mere possession can attract criminal liability.

b. Section 15(2)

• Applies when a person stores child pornography with intent to transmit, display, or distribute it.
• Example given by the Court: Creating a group and planning to share such material.

c. Section 15(3)

• Applies when such material is used for commercial purposes or monetary gain.

2. Distinct Nature of Subsections of Section 15

The Court clarified that:

• Section 15(1), 15(2), and 15(3) are independent offences.
• They cannot coexist simultaneously for the same conduct.
• The difference lies in the degree of criminal intention (mens rea).

3. Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 67B criminalises:

• Publishing or transmitting child pornographic material online.
• Browsing, downloading, or storing such material electronically.

Punishment may extend to imprisonment and fine.

4. Principle Governing Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

Under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS):

The High Court can quash proceedings only when:

• No prima facie offence is disclosed, or
• The proceedings are manifestly malicious or illegal.

If evidence shows possible commission of an offence, the matter must proceed to trial.