Antony Raju, a former state transport minister and Kerala MLA, was charged with tampering with evidence in a 1990 drug case, and the Supreme Court on Wednesday reopened the criminal case against him.
The accused, an Australian national, had been represented by Raju, who at the time was a practising lawyer. A bench consisting of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol ordered that the trial be finished within a year because it concerns a case that is more than 20 years old.
Raju is an MLA from the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress, which is a member of the Left Democratic Front coalition that rules the state, Indian Express reported.
When drugs were found in an Australian citizen's underwear in 1990, police detained him under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The trial court found the accused guilty, but the Kerala High Court freed him since the innerwear was not of his size. HC, however, believed that it might be possible to tamper with the evidence.
Following a vigilance investigation, Raju and a court employee were charged with conspiracy to cause evidence disappearance and arraigned as accused in a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 1994.
Raju challenged this in front of the HC, which dismissed the FIR on the grounds that a police chargesheet in a matter involving the fabrication of evidence in a judicial process cannot be taken into consideration.
Nonetheless, the high court asked that its registry take the necessary steps to pursue the case in accordance with the pertinent sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), acknowledging the seriousness of the violation.
The Supreme Court received two appeals against this: one from Raju contesting the high court's order that the matter be prosecuted under the pertinent CrPC provisions, and another from a third party contesting the acquittal. Raju challenged the appellant's locus before the Supreme Court, but his objections were rejected by the Justices Ravikumar and Karol bench on Wednesday.
On the subject of whether the high court correctly decided that the proceeding in question would be barred under CrPC, the Supreme Court stated, "We are of the view that the high court committed an error and there is no bar." It further stated that the high court's direction to take action on the complaint was error-free.
“Applying the above principles to the case in hand where the alleged forgery of evidence in a criminal investigation has resulted in acquittal in an NDPS case and thereafter FIR has been registered, the HC has rightly considered this to be an exceptional circumstance where the accused persons should not be protected from facing the processes of law. Therefore…it cannot be said that the HC ordering fresh steps to be taken against the upper end was bad in law,” the Supreme Court said.
“In view of the above, impugned (HC) order is set aside. The order taking cognisance…and all other proceedings pursuant to the same are restored to the files of the judicial first class magistrate, concerned,” the Supreme Court added.
It ordered that the accused appear before the trial court on December 20, 2024, or on the following working day of the concerned court.