Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Transport Minister Antony Raju In Evidence Tampering Case On Technical Grounds

Citing technical reasons, the Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the trial court proceedings against Transport Minister of Kerala, Antony Raju in connection with the evidence tampering case against the Minister pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad, in Thiruvananthapuram.

However, the single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman clarified that this would not preclude the competent authority or the court concerned from taking up the matter and pursuing the prosecution in compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

“Though, this court interfered in the proceedings for technical reasons, it cannot be ignored that the allegations raised are serious in nature. The materials placed before this Court reveal allegations which are of such nature and gravity that interfere with the judicial functions and thereby polluting the mechanism of administration of justice. Such acts are required to be dealt with strictly with all vigour, and this court expects a positive and effective follow-up action on this from the authorities concerned to ensure that a fair trial in accordance with the law takes place and the culprits are punished adequately.” the court said in its order. 

Taking note of the fact that the offences were allegedly committed in 1990, and further delay would defeat the purpose of the proceedings, the court also directed the registry to take appropriate action in this regard under the relevant provisions of the CrPC.

Senior Advocate P Vijaya Bhanu, appeared for Antony Raju, the 2nd accused, assisted by Advocates Deepu Thankan, Ummul Fida, Lakshmi Sreedhar, R.Rajanandini Menon, Shahnas K.P and Nikita J. Mendez. Advocate S Rajeev appeared for the the 1st accused in the crime. Advocate B.G.Harindranath appeared for the defacto complainant and Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan appeared for the state.

The court had previously stayed all further proceedings against Raju in the evidence tampering case on the prima facie finding that the procedure stipulated under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with in respect of an offence under Section 193 (Punishment for False Evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. The court had observed that under Section 195(1) CrPC any proceedings related to Section 193 IPC and the conspiracy to conduct the same could only be conducted on the basis of a complaint of the concerned court or the officer authorized by court or a subordinate court. In Raju's case, the court found that this mandatory procedure had not been complied with. 

The prosecution case is that Raju while practicing as an advocate conspired in tampering evidence in a case involving an Australian citizen, Andrew Salvatore who was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Salvatore was found in possession of charas which he had concealed in the pocket of his underwear. In the trial against the Australian National, the undergarment was treated as a crucial piece of evidence. Even though Salvatore was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by the lower court, 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. 

The 1st accused in the case was the court clerk who secured the personal belongings of the accused and the 2nd accused was Raju, who was practicing as a lawyer in Thiruvananthapuram at the time. It is alleged that the 1st and 2nd accused conspired together to secure the release of Salvatore from the High Court by tampering with the crucial piece of evidence. 

Even though Salvatore was acquitted by the High Court, the court indicated the possibility of evidence tampering based on which the Vigilance Officer of the court conducted an investigation and submitted his report. An office memorandum was issued to request the Thiruvananthapuram District Court to direct the Sheristadar to give a first information report to the police in this regard. Subsequently, a crime was registered by the police and a final report was submitted. Raju's plea to quash the proceedings against him was allowed on the technical ground that  the cognizance taken on the police report was not legally tenable as it was in violation of the procedure mandated in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Case Title: Adv. Antony Raju v. State of Kerala and Others, Jose v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 130  

Click here to read/download judgment