<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings against a person from Kerala over possession of child pornography content on a mobile phone.</p>.<p>The court cited an Apex Court judgement and said that possession or storage of pornographic material involving a child would attract the rigours of Section 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 15 of the Pocso Act.</p>.<p>The crime was registered by the Commercial Street police in Bengaluru against the petitioner, hailing from Thrissur in Kerala.</p>.In POCSO cases, likelihood of evidence tampering, influencing witnesses legitimate concerns: Supreme Court.<p>The police had registered the FIR in 2025 for offences under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.</p>.<p>The petitioner claimed that mere storage of child pornography would not amount to an offence and it becomes an offence only if it is transmitted.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna cited the Apex Court judgement in the Just Rights for Children Alliance Vs S Harish case.</p>.<p>"The Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgement in unambiguous terms holds that possession or storage of pornographic material involving a child would attract the rigours of Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15 of the Pocso Act.</p>.<p>"The Supreme Court further holds that Section 15 of the Pocso Act is in the nature and form of an inchoate offence, which also penalises the mere storage or possession of child pornographic material when done with the specific intent to share or transmit, without requiring any actual transmission or dissemination, since 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," Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>"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. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial."</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings against a person from Kerala over possession of child pornography content on a mobile phone.</p>.<p>The court cited an Apex Court judgement and said that possession or storage of pornographic material involving a child would attract the rigours of Section 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 15 of the Pocso Act.</p>.<p>The crime was registered by the Commercial Street police in Bengaluru against the petitioner, hailing from Thrissur in Kerala.</p>.In POCSO cases, likelihood of evidence tampering, influencing witnesses legitimate concerns: Supreme Court.<p>The police had registered the FIR in 2025 for offences under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.</p>.<p>The petitioner claimed that mere storage of child pornography would not amount to an offence and it becomes an offence only if it is transmitted.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna cited the Apex Court judgement in the Just Rights for Children Alliance Vs S Harish case.</p>.<p>"The Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgement in unambiguous terms holds that possession or storage of pornographic material involving a child would attract the rigours of Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15 of the Pocso Act.</p>.<p>"The Supreme Court further holds that Section 15 of the Pocso Act is in the nature and form of an inchoate offence, which also penalises the mere storage or possession of child pornographic material when done with the specific intent to share or transmit, without requiring any actual transmission or dissemination, since 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," Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>"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. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial."</p>