Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has suggested sensitisation of judicial officers and police officers in West Bengal after finding that the name of a minor victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was not masked contrary to mandatory requirement under the statutes and the court's previous judgment.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale noted in a criminal case related to anticipatory bail where, while recording statements of the victim under Sections 164 and 161 of the CrPC, her name is mentioned, and has not been masked as per law laid down in Nipun Saxena Vs Union of India (2019).

"We therefore feel that an exercise of sensitisation of judicial officers as well as the police Officers is required to be undertaken in the State of West Bengal so as to ensure strict compliance of this mandatory requirement," the bench said.

The court also directed a copy of this order should be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta for being placed before the Chief Justice.

While rejecting a bail application by one Utpal Mandal alias Utpal Mondal, the bench said, "We are of the view that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of anticipatory bail. However, before closing the matter, we must observe that the mandatory requirements of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the IPC have not been followed in this case inasmuch as while recording statements of the victim under Sections 164 and 161 of the CrPC her name is mentioned, and has not been masked."

The bench cited the Nipun Saxena case in which, the Supreme Court had said, "Neither IPC nor CrPC define the phrase “identity of any person”. Section 228-A IPC clearly prohibits the printing or publishing “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the person”. It is obvious that not only the publication of the name of the victim is prohibited but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make known the identity of such victim."

in said judgment, court had also said entire purpose of POCSO is to ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed unless the Special Court for reasons to be recorded in writing permits such disclosure. This disclosure can only be made if it is in the interest of the child and not otherwise.

Case Title: UTPAL MANDAL @ UTPAL MONDAL vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.