Today(on 4th June), The Madras High Court has granted permission for the CB-CID to appeal the acquittal of YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar. Shankar was cleared by an Additional Sessions Court in 2017 in a case involving allegations of illegally acquiring electronic data from the DVAC office in 2008.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: Today(on 4th June), The Madras High Court has authorized the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) to pursue an appeal against the clearance of well-known YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar, alternatively identified as A. Shankar. This appeal originates from a 2017 legal proceeding wherein Shankar was absolved by an Additional Sessions Court in Chennai on February 24, 2017. The case pertained to accusations suggesting that Shankar illegally obtained electronic data from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption’s (DVAC) office in 2008.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, overseeing the proceedings, approved the CB-CID’s application to challenge the prior judgment. This decision comes after the CB-CID revisited the long-pending leave petition, dormant for over seven years since its initiation.
Shankar’s controversial case dates back to 2008 when he was employed as a special assistant in the confidential section of the DVAC office, situated in its then-new building in Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. According to the CB-CID, Shankar’s role became contentious following his dissatisfaction over a denied promotion to Assistant Section Officer.
The turning point in the case unfolded on April 1, 2008. According to the prosecution’s assertion, Shankar took advantage of the absence of N. Vijayarajan, the legal advisor to DVAC, to gain access to Vijayarajan’s computer. It was alleged that during this period of unsupervised access, Shankar transferred numerous audio files to a pen drive labeled ‘Sujatha’. Notably, among these files was a crucial discussion between then DVAC Director S.K. Upadhyay and then Chief Secretary L.K. Tripathy. The contents of this conversation later emerged publicly, appearing in a newspaper and being broadcasted on a Tamil TV news channel on April 14, 2008.
Following these events, the CB-CID lodged a formal complaint through Home Secretary S. Malathi on July 17, 2008, resulting in Shankar’s charges under Sections 66, 70, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
ALSO READ: E-pass Mandatory for Nilgiris, Kodaikanal Entry: Madras High Court
The Additional Sessions Court has acquitted the accused in a high-profile case involving allegations of unauthorized computer usage. The verdict comes after a comprehensive trial that saw the examination of 45 witnesses, ultimately leading the court to conclude that the prosecution had not established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Despite the prosecution’s reliance on six technically proficient witnesses to substantiate the charges, the court found the evidence insufficient. The crux of the issue lay in the lack of an authorized agency in the State to provide opinions on electronic evidence as mandated by Section 79A of the Information Technology (IT) Act. This procedural lapse led the Sessions Court to dismiss the testimony of these expert witnesses.
Further undermining the prosecution’s case was the testimony of Mr. Vijayarajan, the legal advisor, who was examined as a key prosecution witness.
He categorically stated-
“I had no knowledge of any unauthorized use of my computer, and it would be impossible for anyone to access it without the awareness of my typist and office assistant present in the office.”
Adding to the prosecution’s challenges was the testimony of S. Prabakaran, who was responsible for maintaining the computer systems in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) office. Mr. Prabakaran testified that he had created an additional backup of the Director’s audio files on the computer of the legal advisor.
According to him-
“The backup was concealed and accessible solely through a password known to me and my assistant, Hariharasudhan.”
Mr. Prabakaran further stated-
“Only my assistant and I were aware of the backup created on the legal advisor’s computer, and I did not disclose this information to the respondent.”
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Upholds Equality in Polygamous Marriages
Summarizing the case, the Sessions Court concluded-
“To sum up everything, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is acquitted.”
Despite the Court’s verdict, the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) decided to appeal the decision. They filed a petition seeking the court’s leave to appeal on June 9, 2017. However, the appeal languished without substantial progress until arguments resumed in March of this year. This eventually led to Justice Kumar pronouncing orders on the leave petition on Tuesday.
