To enjoy additional benefits
CONNECT WITH US
Updated – June 06, 2024 02:59 pm IST
Published – June 04, 2024 02:42 pm IST – CHENNAI
YouTuber Savukku Shankar. File | Photo Credit: ASHOK R
The Madras High Court on June 4 granted leave (permission) to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) to file an appeal against the acquittal of YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar from a case booked against him for allegedly stealing electronic data from the office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) in 2008.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar allowed an application filed by the CB-CID in 2017 seeking the leave of the High Court to file the appeal against a judgement passed by an Additional Sessions Court in Chennai on February 24, 2017, acquitting the YouTuber from the theft case.
In March this year, the CB-CID decided to dust off the leave petition pending for last seven years.
Also read | Savukku Shankar’s Goondas detention: Chennai Police ask third judge to refer petition against detention back to a Division Bench
The charge against the YouTuber was that he had committed the crime when he was serving as a special assistant in the confidential section of DVAC’s office at its then-newly constructed building in Raja Annamalaipuram in Chennai in 2008. The prosecution had accused him of being disgruntled due to the denial of a promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer.
According to the CB-CID, one N. Vijayarajan was serving as the legal advisor to DVAC in 2008, and his office was located on the ground floor of the building. The legal advisor was in possession of confidential files on his computer. Taking advantage of the advisor’s absence on April 1, 2008, the YouTuber had gained access to that computer and transferred some audio files to a pen drive titled ‘Sujatha,’ the prosecution claimed.
Madras High Court delivers split verdict in ‘Savukku’ Shankar case; Judge says two persons tried to influence him
Coimbatore City Police book YouTubers ‘Savukku’ Shankar, Felix Jerald for ‘derogatory’ remarks on Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar
Cyber crime police get day’s custody of ‘Savukku’ Shankar
One of the files contained a conversation between then DVAC Director S.K. Upadhyay and then Chief Secretary L.K. Tripathy. The details of the conversation were subsequently published in a newspaper and telecast on a Tamil TV news channel on April 14, 2008.
The CB-CID had booked him under Sections 66, 70 and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, following a complaint lodged by Home Secretary S. Malathi on July 17, 2008.
After a full-fledged trial in which as many as 45 witnesses were examined, the Additional Sessions Court held that the prosecution had not proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Though the prosecution had relied upon six technically-sound witnesses to substantiate the charge of unauthorised usage of the computer, the Sessions Court had refused to accept the evidence of those experts since no authorised agency had been notified in the State to give an opinion on electronic evidence as required under Section 79A of the IT Act.
Further, the trial court had also pointed out that the legal advisor Mr. Vijayarajan, examined as a prosecution witness, had categorically deposed that he was not aware of any unauthorised use of his computer and that it would not be possible for anyone to access his computer, even in his absence, without the knowledge of his typist and office assistant stationed in the office.
Yet another prosecution witness S. Prabakaran, who maintained the computer systems in the DVAC office, had told the court it was he who had created an additional backup of the Director’s audio files on the computer of the legal advisor. According to him, this backup was kept hidden and it could be accessed only with a password known to him and his assistant Hariharasudhan.
Mr. Prabakaran had also stated that no one but him and his assistant knew about the creation of the backup in the legal advisor’s computer and that he had not revealed anything about it to the respondent. “To sum up everything, the prosecution has not proved the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, the accused found not guilty,” the Sessions court had concluded.
Though the CB-CID had preferred an appeal against this verdict, along with a petition seeking the leave of the court to file the appeal, on June 9, 2017, it remained pending without any significant progress, till March this year when arguments began before Justice Kumar leading to pronouncement of orders on the leave petition on Tuesday.
Tamil Nadu / court administration
BACK TO TOP
Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.
