While passing the interim order, the court observed that due process was not followed in the prosecution of the alleged offence.
While passing the interim order, the court observed that due process was not followed in the prosecution of the alleged offence.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed for a month all further proceedings in the tampering of evidence case against Transport Minister Antony Raju pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice Ziyad Rehman AA passed the interim order accepting The minister has filed a petition seeking quashing of the case.
non-compliance with procedure
The court, while passing the interim order, held that as per section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the prosecution in respect of an offense under section 193 (framing up of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the conspiracy to commit conspiracy thereon only concerned A case can be prosecuted only on the basis of a complaint by a court or an officer authorized by the court. It was observed that this procedure was not followed. Therefore, the court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of Mr. Raju.
When the petition came up for hearing, P. Vijaya Bhanu, senior counsel for the minister, submitted that even though the petitioner was charged with a major offense under section 193 of the IPC, it was required under sections 195 and 340 of CrPC. It was a mandatory process. was not followed.
Minister’s Arguments
In his plea, Mr Raju said that while acquitting an Australian national accused in the drug trafficking case, the High Court had suggested an inquiry into the tampering of evidence. An inquiry was initially conducted by the Vigilance Wing of the High Court and after that, the Administrative side of the High Court directed the Thiruvananthapuram District Judge to ask the District Court Sherrister to submit the first information statement to the police. Consequently, an FIR was registered on 5 October 1994.
Actually, the Magistrate Court took cognizance of the matter on the charge sheet by the police. However, the police had no authority to investigate such cases. They argued that the magistrate court should not have taken cognizance of the offense under section 193 (making of evidence) of the IPC unless a written complaint is filed by the court or its authorized officer. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the lower court was completely illegal.
What is the matter?
The prosecution’s case was that Mr Raju, in his earlier capacity as counsel for Andrew Salvatore Cerveli, an Australian citizen accused in a drug trafficking case, helped Mr Cerveli tamper with evidence and evade the law. The police had filed a charge sheet in 2006 against Mr. Raju and another accused in the case of Solomon Joseph of Perurkada.
Mr. Seraveli, an Australian national, was arrested on April 4, 1990 at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport for allegedly hiding 61.5 grams of hashish in his underwear. Underwear was considered one of the pieces of evidence. The Australian was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, he was acquitted by the High Court in 1993, when his lawyer proved that the underwear was too small for him and could not be worn by the accused at the time of his arrest. Meanwhile, the then Investigating Officer KK Jayamohan had filed a petition before the High Court stating that the underwear given as evidence was tampered with while it was in the court’s custody. The High Court then ordered its Vigilance Wing to probe the matter. The Vigilance Wing found that the evidence in the custody of the court was tampered with.