New Delhi, Dec. 24: The Supreme Court has quashed the trial of a then senior manager of e-commerce company Bazee.com over the 2004 sale of a sex video of two schoolchildren since he had already been discharged of the offence under the Information Technology Act.

A two-judge bench cited Section 81 of the IT Act to rule that since the IT Act is a special law, it has an "overriding effect" over general laws. So, the accused cannot be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code any more.

Delhi police had booked Sharat Babu Digumarti, then senior manager (trust and safety) with Bazee, under Section 292 of the penal code as well as Section 67 of the IT Act, both dealing with the publication of obscene material.

Section 292 carries a punishment of two to five years while Section 67, dealing specifically with publication in electronic form, entails one of three to five years.

It's a regular police practice to book accused under several sections to maximise the chances of conviction. But the trial court in 2005 quashed the charges under the IT Act before trial while deciding to proceed under Section 292. This newspaper could not ascertain the reason for the decision.

Digumarti moved Delhi High Court challenging his prosecution on the ground of his earlier exoneration under the IT Act. After 10 years, the high court dismissed his plea on August 31, 2015, prompting him to appeal in the apex court.

The explicit sex act between two students of a prominent Delhi school in 2004 had been recorded by the boy on his mobile phone and circulated through MMS to his friends. Bazee had uploaded the video and sold it for Rs 125 per piece.

"It is apt to note here that electronic forms of transmission are covered by the IT Act, which is a special law. It is settled position in law that a special law shall prevail over the general and prior laws," the bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant said in a recent judgment.

The doctrine of double jeopardy, which prevents an accused from being tried a second time on the same or a similar charge and on the same facts following a valid acquittal or conviction, applies only when there are two separate trials. It was therefore irrelevant to Digumarti's case.