Pranav B Prem

A Kerala court has found MLA Antony Raju guilty of tampering with material evidence in a narcotics case dating back to 1990, when he was practising as an advocate. The conviction was recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–I, Nedumangad, where Antony Raju was arrayed as the second accused in the case.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Grants John Doe Interim Injunction Protecting Andhra Pradesh Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan's Personality Rights Against Unauthorised Use Of Name, Image, Likeness And Voice For Commercial Merchandise

The prosecution case traces its origin to April 1990, when an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore, was intercepted at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport while travelling to Mumbai. During frisking, narcotic substances were allegedly found concealed in a pocket stitched inside his underwear. The underwear, along with other personal belongings seized from Salvatore, was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and kept in the court’s safe custody as material evidence in the case.

A few months later, Salvatore moved an application before the Magistrate Court seeking release of his personal belongings. The court allowed the application, and the articles were released through the court clerk. According to the prosecution, Antony Raju, who was then appearing as a junior counsel in the case, received the personal belongings on behalf of Salvatore. It was alleged that the underwear, which constituted a crucial material object in the narcotics case, was also handed over to Antony Raju along with the other articles.

Subsequently, the underwear was returned to the court’s safe custody. Salvatore was later convicted by the trial court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He challenged the conviction before the Kerala High Court.

During the hearing of the criminal appeal before the High Court, the underwear was subjected to what was described as a “practical test.” The court noted that the underwear produced before it did not fit Salvatore and was not of his size. Taking note of this discrepancy, the High Court acquitted Salvatore in February 1991. However, while granting the acquittal, the High Court recorded serious suspicion regarding possible tampering or substitution of the material evidence and observed that the circumstances suggested that the evidence may have been planted.

Following these observations, a vigilance enquiry was conducted, which culminated in the registration of an FIR in 1994 against the court clerk and Antony Raju. The prosecution alleged that the accused had conspired with the intention and preparation to cause disappearance of material evidence and had made “alterations” to ensure that the underwear produced before the High Court would not fit the accused foreign national.

In 2006, the jurisdictional Magistrate took cognisance of the charge sheet filed against the accused persons, which included allegations of criminal conspiracy and tampering with evidence. However, in 2023, the Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the prosecution was barred under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the alleged offence related to evidence produced in court. At the same time, the High Court directed that a de novo investigation be conducted by following the procedure prescribed under law.

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which in 2024 set aside the High Court’s order quashing the proceedings and restored the criminal case, thereby permitting the prosecution to continue in accordance with law.

Also Read: Buyer’s Use Of Goods Triggers Deemed Acceptance, Leaving Only Damages For Breach Of Warranty; Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Godrej & Boyce In Stainless Steel Tubes Dispute

After restoration of the proceedings and completion of trial, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–I, Nedumangad, found Antony Raju guilty of tampering with material evidence in the narcotics case. The court held that the prosecution had established the chain of events relating to the release, alteration, and re-production of the material object and concluded that the evidence had been interfered with during the period it was out of the court’s custody.With this finding, the court convicted Antony Raju in the evidence tampering case. The question of sentence is to be considered separately in accordance with law.

Cause Title: T G Gopalakrishnan Nair and Ors. v Jose and Anr.

Case No: CC No. 811/ 2014