Child Pornography Case: Delhi Court Says Missing Device Can't Stall Prosecution

A Delhi court on July 27, 2026 upheld framing of charges against a man accused of uploading child pornographic material on Facebook, stating that the prosecution cannot be stopped at the threshold merely because the mobile phone allegedly used in the offence was not recovered.

Court said objections over the admissibility of a report generated by the US-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the non-examination of Facebook officials are matters to be decided during trial.

The Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, Saket Courts, dismissed a revision petition challenging a trial court order directing that the accused be tried under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalises the publication, transmission and other forms of dealing with child sexual abuse material in electronic form.

According to the prosecution, the case originated from a complaint received by the Cyber Police Station through the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), based on a CyberTipline report generated by the US-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).

The report alleged that a Facebook account had uploaded a 17-second video depicting a child engaged in a sexually explicit act. During investigation, the IP address and mobile number linked to the account were traced, while the registered subscriber allegedly told police that the accused had created and operated the Facebook account using his phone.

Why did the accused challenge the framing of charges?

The accused argued that the prosecution case rested entirely on the CyberTipline report, which, according to him, was inadmissible as neither officials from Facebook nor NCMEC had been examined during the investigation.

He also contended that no mobile phone was recovered from him and that relying on his disclosure statement violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Further, he claimed the video did not fall within the ambit of Section 67B of the IT Act.

What did the court say?

Rejecting these submissions, court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, a court is only required to determine whether the material on record raises a "grave suspicion" against the accused and not whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Questions relating to the admissibility or evidentiary value of electronic records, it said, are to be examined during trial.

Court further held that the absence of the mobile phone did not weaken the prosecution's case at this stage. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024), it observed that physical recovery of a device is not indispensable where digital evidence, including IP logs and subscriber details, links the accused to control of the relevant social media account. It added that the alleged disposal of the phone by the accused could not be used to "nip a legitimate prosecution in the bud".

As regards the nature of the video, court noted that the trial court had viewed the material and prima facie found it to depict sexually explicit content involving a child. The accused's contention regarding the age or gender of the person shown in the video, it held, constituted a defence that would have to be tested during trial.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order, the sessions court upheld the framing of charges and directed that the trial proceed in accordance with law, while clarifying that its observations would not influence the merits of the case.

Case Title: Aditya Biswas v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Order Date: July 27, 2026

Court: Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi