E-Paper
SC revives 1994 case against Kerala MLA accused of evidence tampering to help client
The alleged incident relates to the period when lawmaker and former minister Antony Raju had not entered politics. Raju first became an MLA in 1996
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revived criminal proceedings against Kerala legislator and former state transport minister Antony Raju in a three-decade-old case when he was still a lawyer and was accused of tampering with evidence to get his client acquitted in a drug trafficking case.
The evidence in this case was the underwear worn by Raju’s client, an Australian national Andrew Salvatore, who was allegedly caught in 1990 at the Thiruvananthapuram airport with 61.5 grams of charas, hidden in a pocket of his underwear.
The alleged tampering with the underwear came to light after the Kerala high court set aside Salvatore’s conviction on the ground that the underwear produced by the prosecution did not fit the accused.
Raju and a trial court official were accused of colluding to tamper with the evidence. The state alleged that the underwear deposited as evidence with the trial court was given by the court official to Raju, a junior lawyer at the time, to make alterations.
Raju challenged the case against him before the Kerala high court which allowed his appeal in March last year. But in its order, the high court made it clear that the state could initiate fresh proceedings against Raju.
Dealing with an appeal filed by one journalist MR Ajayan challenging the quashing of the case against Raju, a bench of justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol on Wednesday restored the order of the Nedumangad judicial magistrate in Thiruvananthapuram taking cognisance of the chargesheet against Raju and directed him to appear before the trial court on December 20.
The trial court has been directed to complete the trial within one year since the case has been pending for nearly three decades.
“The alleged act is a glaring occurrence where the process of criminal prosecution stands interfered with, impugning upon the sanctity of judicial proceedings, resulting in a travesty of justice,” the top court said.
Taking serious exception to the allegations against Raju the bench said, “Such actions not only erode public trust in the judicial system but compromise the principles of the rule of law and fairness, which are essential for the justice delivery system.”
The court noted the “peculiar” circumstances of the present case where the evidence was taken out of judicial custody by the accused and tinkered with before substituting it with the original evidence.
The high court had quashed the case citing Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for the procedure to prosecute any person accused of causing contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and offences relating to documents given in evidence. Under this, HC held there must be a complaint made by the court concerned and it must be an offence against public justice. Finding these two ingredients lacking in Raju’s case, it had quashed his case.
Setting aside the reasoning adopted by the HC, justice Karol penning the judgment for the bench, said, “Such incidents strike at the foundation of the independence and integrity of the judicial process, hence, it cannot be said that there is a lack of public interest.” Also, it added, “The case at hand, which has been quashed by the High Court, involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice.”
Raju opposed Ajayan’s petition claiming that an appeal can be filed only by an interested party and not a third party such as Ajayan. The bench brushed aside this objection citing several judgments of the top court and said, “...it is incumbent upon this court to check the correctness of the approach adopted by the high court, and the locus of the appellant would not come in the way of the same.”
Raju also filed a separate appeal against the same March 2023 order which allowed fresh proceedings to be initiated against him on the allegation of tampering. The bench said, “The interference by the high court in quashing the criminal proceedings was unwarranted...The order taking cognizance in Crime No.215/1994 and all further proceedings pursuant to the same are restored on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad.”
Raju heads the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party, which is part of the state’s ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) alliance.
The alleged incident relates to the period when Raju had not entered politics. It was in 1996 that he first became a member of the Kerala legislative assembly. He was appointed as transport minister after the 2021 state elections and remained in the post till December 2023 when he was dropped in a cabinet reshuffle.
Raju’s client, Andrew Salvatore, was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The high court acquitted his client in February 1991 after doubts were raised about the prosecution story because of the underwear and the court registry was directed to hold an investigation. The court’s vigilance officer conducted an investigation and informed the state which registered a FIR against Raju and the court staff in 1994.
