Kerala High Court quashes underwear evidence tampering case against State Transport Minister Antony Raju

The Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the case of alleged underwear evidence tampering against Antony Raju, the State Transport Minister and leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party, which is part of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) coalition [Adv. Antony Raju v State of Keraa & Anr.].Justice Ziyad Rahman AA allowed the plea moved by Raju but clarified that the present order is not a bar on pursuing prosecution as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."These criminal MCs are allowed. The order of taking cognizance of the final report in crime number 251/1994 and further proceedings pursuant to the same including the proceeding in CC 811/2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate is quashed. However, it is 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 CrPC," the order said.The Court emphasised that the case would have to be dealt with strict vigor since the allegation raised are of a serious nature pointing to interference with judicial functions."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 the court reveal allegations of such nature that interfere with the judicial functions and thereby, procuring the mechanisms of administering justice. Such acts required to be dealt with with strict vigor and this court expect a positive and effective follow-up action from the authorities concerned to ensure that a fair trial in accordance takes place and the culprits are punished adequately," the Court explained.Therefore, the Court directed the registry to take necessary action without any further delay. "Hence, the registry of this court is directed to take appropriate action in this regard according to relevant provisions of the CRPC as referred above without any delay by taking note of the fact that offenses were allegedly committed in the year 1990 and any further delay in the matter would defeat the entire process," the Court ordered..The particulars of the case dates back to the year 1990 when Raju was a junior lawyer representing an Australian man, Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, who was accused of smuggling hashish to India by concealing it in his underwear.When Cervelli approached the High Court in appeal against his conviction by a trial court over 30 years ago, the underwear in question was found to have mysteriously shrunk in size, leading the High Court to acquit Cervelli of all charges.A few years later, the investigating officer in the smuggling case, approached the High Court seeking a probe into the alleged evidence tampering. Subsequently a first information report (FIR) was registered against Raju in 1994 on a complaint filed by the Sheristadar of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.After 12 years of investigation, in 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a charge sheet before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offenses under sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 201(causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 193, 217, and 34 of the IPC..It was Raju's argument that the crucial piece of "underwear evidence" was in the custody of the trial court while it was allegedly tampered with and, therefore, it should have been the court in question that initiated the proceedings to look into the same. However, in this case, the proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the police."However, in the case of the petitioner, the prosecution has been initiated by the Police and not by the Court, which is per se illegal and the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense if the complaint is not by the Court, as the offense is alleged is section 193 of the IPC," the plea said.He submitted that section 195 CrPC creates a bar in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the Police and no court shall take cognizance of the offence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint filed by the Court."Admittedly the court took cognizance of the matter upon a charge sheet by the police and the police have no authority to conduct an investigation in such cases and file a charge sheet before the court. Thus the proceedings pending before the court is nonest in the eye of law," the plea stated.Further, it was argued that sections 340 and 341 CrPC state that the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding the commission of an offense referred to in section 195(1)(b), as the court must judge if the same has a significant impact on the administration of justice."There are patent illegalities in the procedures adopted by the administration wing of this Hon'ble Court, by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the Police in the matter, and same has commenced and completed ignoring the bar created under the s. 195 (1) (b) of the Code and procedure stated in Section 340 of the Code," the plea stated..Antony Raju was represented by advocates Deepu Thankan, Ummul Fida, Lakshmi Sreedhar, R Rajanandini Menon and Shahnas KP..[Read Judgment].The curious case of shrunken underwear and Kerala Minister