Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In another debatable judgment of the Kerela High Court it was decided that, the mere possession of sexually explicit photos in private custody without circulation or publication will not amount to a crime under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986. In furtherance of this, criminal proceedings against two persons were quashed.
The Petitioners in this case were a man and a woman who had to suffer an invasive search by the police while they were waiting at a bus station. A video camera was seized from them which contained sexually explicit photographs and videos of the woman. In lieu of this criminal proceedings were initiated against them under Section 6 of the Act for advertisement and publication of indecent pictures of a woman. It was contended that the pictures and videos were not advertised or published and hence the case was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings. However, the prosecution submitted that the photos and videos of the woman were taken by the man with the intention of circulating.
The Judge held that the petitioner had not circulated or advertised the pictures or videos found in the camera. If a person has a sexually explicit photograph of himself in possession then the provisions of Act 60 of 1986 will not apply, unless the prosecution has a case that those photographs were distributed or published for advertisement or for any other incidental purpose. For this provision to be applicable there should be advertisement or publication of indecent pictures, which was not the case in this present instance.
86540
103860
630
114
59824