The SC Monday stayed proceedings against auction portal eBay India and its chief Avinash Bajaj for allegedly permitting the sale of an MMS clip showing two students from a Delhi school indulging in a sexual actNew Delhi: The Supreme Court today stayed the proceedings against auction portal eBay India and its chief Avinash Bajaj for allegedly permitting the sale of an MMS clip showing two school students from a Delhi school indulging in a sexual act.A bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir, while issuing notice to the Delhi government, stayed the proceedings under Sections 67 and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.While Section 67 bans publishing obscene information in electronic form, Section 85 allows the prosecution of a person responsible for the business of a company over violations.Bajaj, the then managing director of baazee.Com (now Ebay India Pvt Ltd), was arraigned for allowing the MMS clip, recorded on a mobile phone camera, to be uploaded on the company's auction site in 2004. Bajaj, a US citizen, had subsequently sold baazee.Com to eBay in 2004.Challenging the Delhi High Court judgment that quashed proceedings under the India Penal Code on May 29 but permitted prosecution under the I-T Act, Bajaj contended that mere listing could not be construed as a crime under the act.Bajaj in his petition stated that Section 67 of the Act, does not define the term obscenity and thus liability cannot be fixed on him for merely listing of the 2.37-minute clip video clip even if it was obscene."Even assuming that video clip is obscene, mere 'listing' cannot be obscene for the purpose of Section 67 of the Act merely because the video clip may be obscene," he said while seeking quashing of all the proceedings against him. According to the petition, the apex court in its ruling had held that mere 'listing' cannot be treated as obscene and what is required under law was an overt act. Thus for the purpose of interpretation of the term 'causes to be published' under the statue, a specific over act was essential, he said, adding mere inaction does not constitute 'cause' unless there was culpable negligence.No such over act of publication can be attributed to him either in person or as the managing director of the company, Bajaj added.Offering a partial relief to former managing director of Bazee.Com, the High Court had dropped charges of selling and distributing obscene book or object with an intention to blackmail.It had dropped sections 292 (selling of obscene material) and 294 (obscene act) under IPC but made it clear that the case under the I-T Act, for selling the video clip, would continue against Bajaj."As far as Bajaj is concerned, since the IPC does not recognise the concept of an automatic criminal liability attaching to the Director where the company is an accused not even a prima facie case for offence under sections 292 and 294 is made out..," the High court had stated.The High Court rejected the submission made by the prosecution that Bajaj was responsible for the illegal display of the clip both in official as well as in his personal capacity.In December 2004, the Delhi police had registered an FIR against Bajaj and his company Bazee.Com India Pvt Ltd for illegally displaying the video clip.