Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Failure to Report Offenses under POCSO Act: Doctors' Responsibility, Ignorance Not Accepted: Karnataka HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka HC has underscored the seriousness of failure to report offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The judgment specifically highlights the responsibility of doctors in reporting such offenses and emphasizes the need for strict compliance with Section 19 of the Act. The court rejected the defence of ignorance and urged doctors to fulfil their reporting obligations without fail.

According to the judgment, the case involved a gynaecologist who claimed to be unaware of the victim's age, which was crucial in determining the severity of the offense. However, the court declined to accept the defence, stating that it was highly improbable for an experienced doctor not to recognize the victim's tender age and the signs of sexual abuse.

The court quoted previous judgments, including one that highlighted the importance of reporting offenses, especially by doctors. In this regard, the court stated, "Failure to report offense under the POCSO Act is a serious crime and an attempt to shield the offenders. Strict compliance with Section 19 and reporting of offenses is crucial to prevent child abuse and protect the rights and well-being of minors."

The court also referred to Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which imposes punishment, including imprisonment for up to six months or a fine, for the failure to report offenses. Despite the relatively short duration of imprisonment, the court emphasized that the nature of the offense itself warranted serious consideration.

Furthermore, the judgment cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which places a specific duty on the state to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. The court highlighted the need for doctors to fulfill their reporting obligations, as non-reporting not only shields offenders but also undermines the objectives of the POCSO Act.

High court directed strict compliance with Section 19, particularly by doctors involved in the medical termination of pregnancies of minors. The judgment serves as a reminder that reporting offenses under the POCSO Act is a critical responsibility that should not be taken lightly. The court's observations, while specific to the petitioner's case, hold significant implications for all cases falling under the purview of the Act.

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

CHANDRASHEKAR T.B.vs  STATE OF KARNATAKA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Dr.-Chandershekhar-Vs-State-Karntakta-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News