Evidence Tampering Case | Kerala High Court Seeks Status Report On Ongoing Trial Against Minister Antony Raju

The Kerala High Court on Friday called for the status report in the evidence tampering case involving Transport Minister Antony Raju regarding the progress of the trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad. 

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was adjudicating upon a petition seeking expedited trial in the case where the Transport Minister has been accused of tampering with evidence while he was practising as a lawyer.

The Single Judge observed that it would only be appropriate to decide on the maintainability of the petition after a detailed hearing and upon considering the status report from the trial court. 

Therefore, the Court directed the High Court Registry to get a report from the Magistrate on the status of the case. The matter will be taken up after two weeks. 

The prosecution case was that Antony Raju conspired with a clerk of the Thiruvananthapuram court and replaced an undergarment, which was a material object in a drug trafficking case. The case involved an Australian citizen, Andrew Salvatore who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. 

The undergarment was treated as a crucial piece of evidence and the Magistrate trying the NDPS case had ordered for it to be stored separately to avoid it being confused as a personal belonging of the accused. The district court later sentenced the Australian to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, in an interesting turn of events, he was later acquitted by the High Court after the underwear presented as evidence in the trial court was found to be smaller and could not have been worn by the accused at the time of his arrest.

Therefore, it is alleged that through such tampering, Raju secured the release of the accused from the High Court.

This plea was moved by George Vattukulam, a public interest litigant alleging that though the police had filed the charge sheet against Solaman Joseph and Antony Raju in 2006, the matter had been pending all these years without any trial.

When the petition came up for hearing today, the prosecution submitted that the petition was not maintainable since a third party had filed it, and added that the petitioner had no locus standi to approach the Court.

At this juncture, the Judge asked if the court can ignore the plea when it had a bearing on the administration of justice.

"The trial was prolonged for many years. Could a right of the third party be denied when it came to expediting the trial?" Justice Rahman orally remarked.

The Single Judge then opined that a detailed discussion was required to decide upon the maintainability of the case. 

Case Title: George Vattukulam v. State of Kerala