A 17-year-old boy was on Thursday held by the police in Uttar Pradesh’s Gorakhpur for allegedly selling 4,000 clips of child pornography.
According to the police, the accused obtained child pornography through Telegram. A supplier named Raj would send these videos.
The boy would earn a commission of 30 per cent on the sale of each video, reported PTI.
The racket was busted after the cyber police department in Gorakhpur received a tip-off from a volunteer organisation.
The police apprehended the boy and seized his mobile phone on Thursday.
The boy told the police that he would distribute the illegal videos through the Nekogram mobile application and Telegram.
Senior Superintendent of Police Gaurav Grover said the accused charged ₹3000 per video. The price of such videos would go as high as ₹20000.
“The accused charged customers up to ₹3,000 per video, with some videos priced as high as ₹20,000. After receiving payment, he would send the majority of the funds to his supplier ‘Raj’,” he said.
Grover said an FIR has been lodged against the minor under relevant sections of criminal laws.
He said the cyber police are trying to identify other individuals involved in the accused’s child porn distribution network.
Also read: ‘HC committed an error’: Supreme Court sets aside order, calls storing, watching child pornography crime
‘Child pornography a crime’
In September, the Supreme Court ruled that mere storage of such material is a crime under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Also read: Narcissism and sadism can increase sex drive and porn use? Study answers
In its verdict, the Supreme Court suggested that Parliament must bring a law amending the POCSO Act to replace the term “child pornography” with “Child Sexual Exploitative and Abusive Material”.
Also read: Bangladeshi porn star arrested over faking documents for Indian passport
“We have suggested to the parliament to bring an amendment to POCSO…so that the definition of child pornography can be referred to as child sexually abusive and exploitative material. We have suggested an ordinance can be brought in. We have asked all courts not to refer to child pornography in any orders,” the court said.
With inputs from PTI
