PRAKASH CHATTRANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. against the order dated 30. 1. 09 passed in Criminal Case No. 528/07, which was affirmed by the revisional court by a common order dated 16. 4. 2008 passed in Criminal Revisions No. 27/08 and 28/08, by which the charge under sections 509, 506 of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was framed.

(2.) PERUSAL of the order of the trial Court indicates that a Compact Disc (hereinafter referred to as 'cd'), filed along with the challan papers has been seen in the Court, in front of the advocates Shri Mundra, Shri Rawat and Shri n. K. Sharma. The CD was displayed by the S. D. O. P. , Sushri Pratima Patel as directed by Court; on the demand of defence counsel. Later Shri N. K. Sharma, advocate has appeared on behalf of Shri Mundra Advocate and argued on the question of framing of charge. At the out set, it is conceded by him that on the framing the charge under Sections 509 and 506 of IPC, he does not have serious objection, but to frame a charge under Section 67 of the Information Technology act, he is having serious objection; referring the provisions of Section 67 of information Technology Act it is argued that even assuming that the CD is obscene, but no material is available to believe that it was broadcasted by accused Prakash, which is the necessary requirement to framing charge under Section 67 of the information Technology Act. However, it was argued that the CD was not prepared or broadcasted by him; however, charge under Section 67 of the Information technology Act cannot be framed. The Court has recorded a finding that on perusal of the CD, which is seen in the Court, it is apparent that the material available therein is obscene to them who have seen it. The finding has also been recorded that the CD was broadcasted, as apparent from the statements of some of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. wherein it is said that on going through the CD, on its broadcast, it has also come in their knowledge that the girl Mariyam is not the good girl. In some of the statements of witnesses it has further indicated that by using bluetooth obscene photographs have been transmitted to others through cellphone (mobile ). However, looking to over all allegations, and material collected by prosecution in case diary the charge under Section 67 of Information Technology Act against accused Prakash (petitioner herein) has also been framed.

(3.) THE said finding recorded by the trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional court, with the observation, in a case of Information Technology Act as per section 78 investigation ought to have done by the Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, the investigation was done by such Officer, and if some of the documents have prepared by the Head Constable, it may not vitiate the investigation, and such argument cannot be accepted at the stage of framing the charge. It has also observed, the absence of photographs of girl Mariyam have been transmitted publicly without her knowledge and broadcasted to others it causes bad fame to her. On perusal of the challan papers it appears that while lodging the FIR by the father of the girl Mariyam one CD was supplied to police authorities and another CD was recovered from accused prakash during investigation. The Court has seen the CD on a television/dvd and the Court has recorded its prima facie opinion to frame the charges under section 67 of the Information Technology Act. However, the interference at the stage of framing of charge has been refused by revisional Court.