GANGADHAR NARAYAN NAYAK @ GANGADHAR HIREGUTTI V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA

INTRODUCTION

This case is a brief overview of the fact that whether disclosing the identity of a victim in any paper or other sources is illegal. In the respective case, a news report was published in a newspaper which revealed the identity of a sixteen-year-old victim of sexual harassment. Appeal is filed in this case under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act which states the following: 

Media procedure: (1) No one may report on or make comments about a child from any type of media, studio, or photography facility without first obtaining accurate and comprehensive information that could damage the child’s reputation or violate his privacy.

(2) No information about a child’s identity, including his name, address, photo, family information, school, neighbourhood, or any other details that might reveal his identity, may be revealed in any media report.

(3) For the deeds and omissions of his employee, the publisher or owner of the media, studio, or photographic facilities shall be held jointly and severally liable.

(4) Any person who violates the terms of subsection (1) or subsection (2) faces a sentence of either kind of imprisonment, which must not be less than six months but may go up to a year, as well as a fine or both.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In this case, the appellant filed a petition (number 101420/2020) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Karnataka High Court dismissed it. 
2. The appellant filed the appeal in response to the judgement and decision dated September 17, 2021. In this instance, an appeal has been filed in accordance with Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Section 23. 
3. The appellant is the editor of the KARAVALI MUNJAVU Newspaper. On or about October 27, 2017, a story about the sexual harassment of a sixteen-year-old girl appeared in the KARAVALI MUNJAVU newspaper. 
4. The victim’s identity was disclosed in the report.

ISSUES RAISED

[1] Is Section 155(2) of the C.R.P.C. applicable to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of the POCSO?

[2] Is the Special Court unable to find evidence of a violation under Section 23 of POCSO and required to release the accused under Section 227 of the C.R.P.C. solely because the jurisdictional Magistrate refused to allow the police to investigate the offence?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. Senior Counsel Mr. Devdutt Kamat, speaking on behalf of the appellant, stated that the C.R.P.C.’s provisions apply to all crimes currently punishable by law, with the exception of when a unique law specifies a unique process, superseding the general process in accordance with C.R.P.C.
2. Mr. Kamat cited Section 2(n) of the C.R.P.C. to bolster his earlier arguments. This section defines an “offence” as any act or omission that is currently punishable by law. With reference to Subsection (2) of Section 4 of the C.R.P.C. Mr. Kamat stressed that as a result, all offences, including an offence under POCSO Section 23 must be looked into and tried in compliance with C.R.P.C.
3. Mr. Kamat further argued that an offence under POCSO Section 23, which carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison, is both non-cognizable and bailable under Part II of the First Schedule of the C.R.P.C. is read with Section 2(l).
4. Mr. Kamat argued that Section 155(2) of the C.R.P.C.’s mandatory provision requires a police officer to look into a non-cognizable case with the prior consent of the Magistrate, in the event that they are not, the proceedings may be thrown out. Therefore, the police lack the authority to look into an offence under POCSO Section 23 without the prior approval of the Magistrate with jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Kamat vehemently maintained that the High Court’s conclusion that the C.R.P.C.’s provisions were excluded for the purposes of Section 23 of POCSO because of Section 19 of POCSO was false. He stated clearly that: 

(1) The provisions of C.R.P.C. are not excluded by Section 23 of the POCSO. POCSO’s Section 19, which does not apply to the C.R.P.C. Section 23 offences are exempt from the reporting requirement.

(2) The POCSO’s Section 31 applies the top procedures of C.R.P.C under POCSO before the Special Court, unless especially left out. The High has not observed this provision.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. Speaking on behalf of the State of Karnataka, Mr. Padhi argued that the POCSO was passed by Parliament with the commendable goal of penalising sexual offences against minors. POCSO Section 23 stops the victim’s identity from being revealed. Here, the victim’s name was disclosed in the news article.
2. Mr. Padhi continued by stating that POCSO supersedes general procedural law because it is a special enactment. Furthermore, the non obstante clause that opens Section 19 of POCSO says, “Notwithstanding anything that is stated in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. This demonstrates unequivocally that the C.R.P.C.’s Sections 154 and 155 have no application to a violation of POCSO Section 23. The authorities have obligation under POCSO Sections 19(1) and 19(2)(c) to document the information provided by anyone with knowledge of a criminal offence is likely to be committed or has been committed under POCSO.
3. Mr. Padhi went on to say that the case had moved past the investigation phase and that a charge sheet had been submitted. The Court had become aware of it. According to Mr. Padhi, even presuming, for the purpose of contention, that the police had to obtain the prior consent of the relevant jurisdictional magistrate prior to moving forward with the inquiry, by itself, does not invalidate the court’s ruling, recognising and articulating accusations. The defendant must show serious prejudice, something the appellant hasn’t been able to carry out.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Bench considered every law referenced in the relevant statute when it rendered the following decision in this case.

Every child has the unalienable right to a life of dignity, to develop in an environment that promotes good mental and physical health, to receive equal treatment under the law, and to be free from discrimination. A child’s unalienable rights include the right to privacy protection. All people, including children, are guaranteed the aforementioned fundamental and inalienable rights under the Indian Constitution. Part 3 of the Indian Constitution lists the following categories of fundamental rights: the right to privacy, the right to personal liberty, and the right to live with dignity. 

Considering the aforementioned, this appeal is granted. This sets aside the Trial Court’s contested taking cognizance order and any subsequent orders that it passed and that the High Court upheld. The Special Court is free to investigate non-cognizable offences in accordance with the protocol that has been established. 

In a separate ruling, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari granted the appeal despite not agreeing with Hon. Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee’s position.

The Registry is instructed to present the matter immediately before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assignment before a suitable Bench, as the Bench has been unable to reach a consensus. This is the decision that the bench made.

ANALYSIS

This appeal is filed against a ruling and order dated September 17, 2021, issued by the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court. This ruling dismissed the appellant’s Criminal Petition No. 101420/2020, which was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (referred to as “the C.R.P.C.”). Additionally, the order upheld a ruling dated April ]19, 2018, issued by the Principal District Judge of Uttar Kannada, Karwar, who took cognizance of the appellant’s offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (referred to as “POCSO”). 

CONCLUSION

It was held by the court that the petitioners did not have grounds for quashing the proceedings and that the offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act is a non-cognizable offence.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/gangadhar-narayan-nayak-gangadhar-hiregutti-versus-state-of-karnataka-ors
2. https://www.indianconstitution.in/2022/03/gangadhar-narayan-nayak-gangadhar.html

This article is written by Druti Dutta of Symbiosis Law School, Noida; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin