Partly allowed

Amish Jayant Dharod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2013APL/53/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the court held that electronic SMS transmissions of sexually explicit content fall under section 67A of the IT Act rather than section 292 of the IPC regarding obscenity. The application was partly allowed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Application partly allowed; prosecution directed under section 67A of IT Act, 2000 instead of section 292 IPC.

Amish Jayant Dharod Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vrd 1 APL53/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2012

¶5

Amish J. Dharod
v/s

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents

¶8

None for Applicant.
Mr S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶10

DATED : 12TH JULY 2013.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1.Respondent No.2 called, absent. Heard

¶13

learned counsel for original complainant. He has
prosecuted respondent No.2 for sending him SMS on
several noted dates containing sexual explicit act.
Consequently, he prosecuted the respondent No.2.

¶14

The matter was carried in revision application
No.87 of 2009, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Sewri, Mumbai partly allowed by restoring
the criminal case and directed for issuance of

¶15

process under section 292 of IPC. The same was
questioned by the accused therein and this Court on

¶16

vrd 2 APL53/12

¶17

22nd November 2010 in writ petition No.2881 of 2010
directed the learned Additional Sessions Judged to
rehear revision application No.87 of 2009 afresh
and pass appropriate order. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, after remand, on 29th January 2011

¶18

issued process for offence under section 292 of IPC
against the respondent No.2 (original accused) in

¶19

C.C. No.55/SW/2008. Same is questioned by the

¶20

original complainant.

¶21

2.The provisions of section 292 IPC under

¶22

which process was issued contemplated prosecution
in respect of sale or circulation of a book,
pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting,
representation, figure or any other object, shall
be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or
appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect
is taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and
corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to
all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear
the matter contained or embodied in it.

¶23

3.Reading the section 292 as a whole, it

¶24

vrd 3 APL53/12

¶25

specifies reference to any book, pamphlet, paper,

¶26

writing, drawing, painting, representation or
figure, however, in the instant case, it is a
transmission of messages in and by way of
electroniccordinmobileconnection.
Consequently, the effect of section 67A of the
Information and Technology Act 2000 shall have its
impact than application under section 292 of IPC.
Application is partly allowed as above.

¶27

( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Amish Jayant Dharod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amish Jayant Dharod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendraprasad Ghurahu Nisha and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Neeraj Nagorao Karhade Vs Brics Gilt Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Restech Pharma and Anr. Vs M/S. Mumbai Pharma Chem and Anr.

M/S. Paranjpe Construction Companny and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Bapu Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mandlik Trading Company Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.