New Delhi/Thiruvananthapuram, July 25 The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed fresh proceedings initiated against Kerala Transport Minister Antony Raju in the underwear evidence-tampering case pending against him.
The apex court was hearing Raju's appeal against a Kerala High Court order passed in March this year and asked a notice to the State of Kerala in the matter.
Raju is the only legislator of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party which is part of the ruling Left Democratic Front.
The High Court had, while quashing the proceedings in the case, left open the initiation of fresh action and prosecution against him for falsifying evidence.
It had also directed its registry to initiate such proceedings, calling for expedient action even as the incidents in question happened over three decades ago.
The case originated 33 years ago when an Australian man named Andrew Salvatore Cervelli was arrested at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly smuggling 61.5 grams of charas by concealing it in his underwear.
At the time, Raju had just begun his political career and was a young lawyer practicing in Kerala.
Raju represented Cervelli first before the trial court, which convicted and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment, but when he moved the High Court in appeal, the underwear in question was found to have been way too small to fit Cervelli and he was acquitted.
But things turned again after a few years Cervelli returned to his home country, based on information received from the Australian National Central Bureau, the investigating officer in the smuggling case approached the High Court seeking a probe to find out if there was any evidence tampering.
Soon, a criminal complaint was registered against Raju and a court clerk in 1994 and after 12 years, in 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a charge sheet before the magistrate court.
The High Court quashed proceedings, reasoning that for the offence in question, the courts below could not have taken cognisance based on a police report.
However, the High Court had clarified that its order would not be a bar on pursuing prosecution as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor