Appellant -Sharat Babu Digumarti
Respondent -state of (NCT of Delhi)
Statute referred
Indian Penal code
Information Technology Act
Facts
The Appellant was a senior manager (trust and safety) at a company and was charged under section 292, 294 IPC read with section 67 of IT Act, 2000. It was alleged that the appellant’s company were in the possession of obscene material and they were selling and distributing obscene materia.
The appellant aggrieved by the order framing of charge then moved to the High Court in Criminal Revision and the learned Single Judge by the impugned order declined to interfere on the ground that there is sufficient material showing appellant’s involvement to proceed against him for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 292 IPC.
The High Court opined that the accused could not be charged on the aforementioned sections and instead should be charged under section 67 read with section 85 of IT Act 2000.
The appellant moved to the Supreme Court, and the latter ordered the conquer of procedures against the former. The trial court ordered the proceeding continue solely on section 292 of IPC, when an application was placed before the trial court to drop the proceeding. Against the order framing of charge, A revision petition was put forward to the High Court but the High Court refused to interfere in the issue.
Issue:
Whether the appellant who has been discharged under Section 67 of the IT Act could be proceeded under Section 292 IPC?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant stated that in the case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was dealing with constitutional validity of Section 66-A of the IT Act 2000 and the two-Judge Bench declared the section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional
The appellant affirmed that the section 66A is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep safeguard speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of over breadth.”
Respondents Arguments
The respondent stated that the petitioner was not a party to it.
The respondent further contended that elements of Section 292 IPC are not made out against the petitioner as he is being prosecuted solely because of his status as Manager, Trust and Safety of the company.
Decision
Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed by the High Court and the trial court are set aside and the criminal prosecution lodged against the appellant stands quashed.
Sangeeta N
Presidency University, Bangalore