Yet another contention advanced by learned counsel
is that, the incident took place before the introduction of the
Act. The POCSO Act came into force in the year 2012 and the
issue with respect to molestation took place much prior to
that. The incident under the consideration of the Commission
was not the issue of molestation. The issue was with respect
to the publication of the details of the victim child through face
book post, which took place on 23.05.2016 when the post was
uploaded in the face book. Therefore, in order to attract an
offence under Sec.23, the incident allegedly took place in
is that, the incident took place before the introduction of the
Act. The POCSO Act came into force in the year 2012 and the
issue with respect to molestation took place much prior to
that. The incident under the consideration of the Commission
was not the issue of molestation. The issue was with respect
to the publication of the details of the victim child through face
book post, which took place on 23.05.2016 when the post was
uploaded in the face book. Therefore, in order to attract an
offence under Sec.23, the incident allegedly took place in
respect of the molestation of the child is not at all relevant.
The relevance of Sec.23 is in respect of the face book post,
which, even according to the petitioner, is after the
introduction of the Act. Therefore, there is no substance or
foundation for the contention advanced by the learned counsel
accordingly.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
WP(C).No. 31378 of 2016 (V)
SUDHEESH KUMAR.S.R.,
V
STATE OF KERALA,
Citation: 2017 CRLJ 443 kerala,2017 ALLMR (CRI)JOURNAL113
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
WP(C).No. 31378 of 2016 (V)
SUDHEESH KUMAR.S.R.,
V
STATE OF KERALA,
Citation: 2017 CRLJ 443 kerala,2017 ALLMR (CRI)JOURNAL113
