On 4 March 2014 and 16 April 2014, anonymous posts appeared on two consumer grievance websites — consumercomplaints.in and complaintsaboutbusiness.in — alleging that Flexi Partners, a Bengaluru company, sexually harassed its women employees and imputing acts of infidelity to its Manager, P.W.3. The company filed a police complaint; Commercial Street P.S. registered Cr.No.131/2014; and Sanil Pillai, husband of former employee Semi Pillai, was arrested on suspicion. On 7 February 2022, the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, acquitted both accused, citing a catalogue of investigative failures that left the prosecution's case without any credible evidentiary foundation.

The judgment is a textbook study in what happens when a cyber-crime investigation is conducted without digital forensic discipline — and why sec 65-B certification, IP traceability, and proper chain of custody are not procedural formalities but the very spine of a case under the IT Act.

01 ——

Background: The Complaint and the Charge Sheet

Accused No.2, Semi Pillai, was a former employee of Flexi Partners. Her husband, Accused No.1 Sanil Pillai, was alleged to have posted malicious and defamatory content about the company — including allegations of infidelity against its Manager (P.W.3/C.W.1) and charges that the company sexually harassed female staff — on two publicly accessible websites.

Police Inspector Muralidhar (P.W.8) registered the case, conducted a spot mahazar (Ex.P1), seized a Sony laptop found at the company's premises (IP: 192.168.0.101), collected call detail records, and arrested Accused No.1 on 31 May 2014 "on suspicion." A subsequent I.O. incorporated sec 67 of the IT Act and sec 499 IPC; the charge sheet was filed; and charges were framed for sec 509 r/w sec 34 IPC and sec 67 IT Act. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

02 ——

Prosecution Evidence: Nine Witnesses, Seventeen Exhibits

The prosecution examined nine witnesses — all either employees of Flexi Partners or investigating officers. No independent witness was cited or examined. The court found the employee witnesses' evidence largely hearsay — each admitted they came to know of the accused's alleged involvement only through the police, not from their own knowledge.

P.W.
Witness
Designation / Role
Source of knowledge
P.W.1
Dandapani
Admin Manager, Flexi Partners
Via Police
P.W.2
Mariya Gloria
Assoc. Vice President, Flexi Partners
Via Police
P.W.3
Rathish (C.W.1)
Manager, Flexi Partners — Informant
Via Police
P.W.4
Nagabhushan
Auditor, Flexi Partners
Via Police
P.W.5
Neetha
HR, Flexi Partners
Via Police
P.W.6
Suguna (WPC)
Search party — Commercial Street PS
Officer
P.W.7
Manjunath Gowda (PC)
Apprehension of A1 — Commercial Street PS
Officer
P.W.8
Muralidhar (PSI)
First Investigating Officer
I.O. — PSI
P.W.9
R.S.T. Khan (PI)
Second Investigating Officer
I.O. — PI

Crucially, P.W.2 — the company's Associate Vice President — admitted that Accused No.1 had never entered the office (only the visitor's area) and that 3–4 employees shared the seized laptop. The posted content was attributed to usernames "rinablr" and "M.Christy", not to either accused.

03 ——

The Investigative Failures — Where the Prosecution Collapsed

"When it is alleged that accused themselves have posted such contents, it is a primary burden on investigating agency to prove nexus between accused, the electronic device used by him for committing alleged offence and also the social platform or e-mail used for such offence."

Para 19, Judgment dated 7-2-2022, I Addl. CMM, Bengaluru

The court catalogued the prosecution's failures with specificity. P.W.8 (the first I.O.) admitted in cross-examination that the IP address visible in the exhibits — 192.168.0.101 — was a private IP address, and he could not say whether it was a public IP or trace it to any device used by the accused. The public IP collected separately (223.180.109.7) was never explained or linked to accused. No MAC address was recorded; no source computer was seized; no serial numbers of the printer used to print Exhibits P3–P12 were noted; and the official from CID Cyber Crime PS who provided the e-mail data was never cited as a witness.

04 ——

Key Findings of the Court

✗
No sec 65-B Certificate for Electronic Evidence
Exhibits P3 to P12 — printouts of the allegedly defamatory website content — are electronic evidence requiring a certificate under sec 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. P.W.8 admitted no such certificate was produced. Without it, the documents are inadmissible and the entire corpus of evidence regarding the posted content collapses.
✗
IP Address Not Traced — Private vs. Public Distinction Unexplained
The I.O. could not confirm whether IP 192.168.0.101 was private (LAN-internal) or public. No correspondence was made with the concerned department to trace the public IP. No nexus was established between the accused and the device that uploaded the content — the fundamental evidentiary link was missing entirely.
✗
Source Computer Never Identified or Seized
The content was posted under usernames "rinablr" and "M.Christy" — not the accused's names. The I.O. never found the device from which the posts were made, never seized it, and never linked it to either accused. The laptop seized from Flexi Partners belonged to the company and was used by multiple employees — not by Accused No.1, who was admitted to have never entered the office.
⚠
Arrest on "Suspicion" — No Grounds Disclosed
P.W.8 admitted he arrested Accused No.1 on suspicion after a voluntary statement — but could not explain the "routine check" relied upon, nor produce any evidence of it. The court found this entirely unexplained, undermining the legitimacy of the entire investigative trail that followed the arrest.
✗
Investigation Rank Violated sec 78 IT Act — Sub-Inspector Level
Section 78 of the IT Act mandates that investigation of IT Act offences be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector. P.W.8 — who conducted the major part of the investigation — was a PSI (Police Sub-Inspector). The court held this vitiated his portion of the investigation, providing an additional ground to discard the prosecution case.
≠
Content Did Not Meet sec 67 "Obscene / Sexually Explicit" Threshold
On a bare perusal of Exhibits P3 to P12, the court found that the content — defamatory and unpleasant as it may be — did not constitute sexually explicit material capable of attracting sec 67 of the IT Act. Further, no independent witness was examined to establish that the content outraged the modesty of any person.
✓
All Five Employee-Witnesses: Knowledge Only Through Police
Each of P.Ws.1 through 5 admitted in cross-examination that they did not independently know who had posted the content — they learned of the accused's alleged involvement only from the police. No witness had direct knowledge of the commission of the offence, leaving the prosecution entirely dependent on the discredited investigation.
05 ——

Charges Framed & Outcome

Charges Framed
Sanil Pillai & Semi Pillai

Charged under sec 509 r/w sec 34 IPC (word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman, with common intention) and sec 67 of the IT Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form). Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Verdict
Acquitted — Both Accused

Acting under sec 248(1) Cr.P.C., both Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 were acquitted of all charges. Bail and surety bonds directed to continue for two months from the date of order before standing cancelled automatically. No appeal filed by prosecution is noted in the judgment.

Final Order — Shri Anand T. Chavan, I Addl. CMM, 7 February 2022
Verdict
Acquittal
Provision
sec 248(1) Cr.P.C.
Accused Acquitted
A1 & A2 — All Charges

Points 1 and 2 answered in the negative — prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed offences under sec 509 r/w sec 34 IPC and sec 67 IT Act. Bail bonds of both accused to continue for two months from 7.02.2022 and thereafter cancelled automatically. Judgment typed and pronounced in open court.

06 ——

Why This Judgment Matters

sec 65-B
Certificate is not optional
The court's refusal to rely on electronic evidence without a sec 65-B certificate — even where the content was clearly before it as printouts — underscores that digital evidence without proper certification is inadmissible in criminal proceedings regardless of the underlying offence.
sec 78
Rank requirement vitiates investigation
Section 78 IT Act mandates Inspector-rank investigators for IT Act offences. This case confirms that a Sub-Inspector-led investigation is not a technicality — it vitiates the investigation itself and provides an independent acquittal ground.
IP
Private IP ≠ accused's device
The failure to distinguish between private (LAN) and public IP addresses — and to trace the public IP back to the accused's device — is now a documented acquittal ground. Courts will not presume that a company-internal IP address identifies any individual accused.
sec 67
Defamation ≠ obscenity
The court drew a clear line: defamatory and morally offensive content does not automatically constitute "sexually explicit" or "obscene" material under sec 67 IT Act. Prosecutors must establish the statutory character of the content independently, ideally through expert or independent witness evidence.
07 ——

Legal Team

NOC Vakalat — Representation Note

The advocate originally on record for the accused issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) Vakalat to Roots Cyber Law Firm, enabling Roots Cyber Law Firm to formally take up the representation of the accused in these proceedings.

Roots Cyber Law Firm  —  For the Accused
Lead Counsel  ·  Roots Cyber Law Firm
Adv. Ranganath M.A.
Lead counsel for the accused before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Adv. Ranganath M.A. successfully dismantled the prosecution's case on multiple fronts — challenging the admissibility of electronic evidence for want of a sec 65-B certificate, exposing the private-IP-address gap in the I.O.'s investigation, invoking the sec 78 IT Act rank requirement to vitiate the PSI-led investigation, and establishing that the content alleged did not meet the obscenity threshold under sec 67 of the IT Act — securing acquittal for both accused under sec 248(1) Cr.P.C.
08 ——

Conclusion

The acquittal in State v. Sanil Pillai & Anr. is as much a judgment about investigative discipline as it is about the accused. The court did not find the accused innocent — it found that the State had entirely failed to build an admissible, traceable, and coherent case linking them to the alleged online posts.

Every procedural deficiency — the missing sec 65-B certificate, the untraced IP, the sub-Inspector investigation, the non-seized source device, the absent CID Cyber Crime witness — compounded into a prosecution that could not survive basic scrutiny. The five company employees, however genuine their grievance, could only testify to what they were told by police, not to what they personally witnessed.

For practitioners, this case is a clear map of what a digital evidence chain of custody must look like — and a reminder that courts in Bengaluru will not lower the evidentiary bar merely because the alleged medium is the internet. The burden remains proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that burden requires rigorous forensic foundations from the first hour of investigation.