Summary
An editor challenged proceedings under Section 23 of POCSO for publishing a child victim’s identity, arguing that investigation required prior permission under Section 155(2) CrPC. Indira Banerjee, J. would dismiss the appeal, relying on POCSO’s special reporting and child-protection framework. J.K. Maheshwari, J. would allow it, treating the offence as non-cognizable and the permission requirement as applicable. The common order referred the matter to the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate Bench.
Issues
- Whether POCSO’s special reporting framework displaced the requirement of permission to investigate the Section 23 offence.
- What procedural consequence followed investigation without permission under Section 155(2) CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 19 and 23, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The judges disagreed on whether the special reporting and protection scheme displaced the ordinary investigation requirement for the alleged media-disclosure offence. (¶¶ Banerjee J., 34-39, 55-59, Maheshwari J., 10-16, 20-21)
- Sections 4, 5 and 155(2); First Schedule, Part II, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The separate opinions differed on the interaction between the Code and POCSO, and on the need for prior permission in this case; no common final ruling resolved that question. (¶¶ Banerjee J., 12-18, 31-39, Maheshwari J., 7-20, Order)
Held
- Indira Banerjee, J. considered Section 19 applicable to all POCSO offences, including identity disclosure under Section 23. Its requirements for expeditious protective action supported investigation without the asserted prior permission; Sections 31 and 33(9) concerned proceedings and trial rather than investigation. She would dismiss the appeal and require a defence on merits. (¶ Banerjee J., 34-39, 55-59)
- J.K. Maheshwari, J. considered Section 19 a reporting and protective provision that did not classify all offences as cognizable or prescribe an investigation procedure. Applying the Code’s classification to Section 23’s punishment, he regarded the offence as non-cognizable and prior permission as necessary. (¶ Maheshwari J., 7-17)
- J.K. Maheshwari, J. would read the permission function in this setting as exercisable by the Special Court. He would set aside cognizance and consequential orders while leaving that court free to follow the procedure for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. (¶ Maheshwari J., 20-21)
- The judges’ disagreement resulted in a common direction to place the matter forthwith before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench. Neither proposed disposition became the Bench’s common final resolution. (¶ Order)
Result
Split opinions. The Registry was directed to place the matter forthwith before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench; the common order did not finally allow or dismiss the appeal.