The Delhi High Court has resolved the ambiguity and categorized Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO”) as a cognizable and non-bailable offence observing that the maximum punishment that can be awarded is 3 years and hence, the offence would fall within the ambit of the second category of Part II of Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”).
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed to resolve the conundrum around the classification of Section 12 of POCSO as a bailable or a non-bailable offence.
Observations of the Court:
Section 12 POCSO provides for imprisonment extendable up to three years in case of sexual harassment inflicted on a child. Now, schedule II Part II CrPC stipulates that the offence would be cognizable and non-bailable if the punishment is imprisonment for 3 years but not more than 7 years. The offence would be non-cognizable and bailable if imprisonment is for less than 3 years.
The primary issue is that Section 12 POCSO provides for imprisonment extendable up to 3 years which means that it can either be a cognizable and non-bailable offence or non-cognizable and bailable.
The decision of the Court:
Applying the similar rationale as laid in the case of Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 668) , the High Court opined that Section 12 POCSO will fall within the ambit of the second category of Part II of Schedule I of CrPC i.e., cognizable and non-bailable offence.
The reason behind this is that the maximum punishment that can be awarded in the case of Section 12 is 3 years and hence, the offence would be categorized as a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court settled the ambiguity and disposed of the PIL.
Case Title: R.K. Tarun v. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5434/2017
Advocate for Petitioner: Petitioner-in-Person
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Anil Soni, Mr. Rahul Mourya, Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Ms. Swati Kwatra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
