The Kerala High Court observed that proving intent by former Transport Minister Antony Raju to tamper with evidence in a 1990 drug case may be difficult, as Justice C. Jayachandran questioned whether his senior lawyer knew of the alleged act.
KERALA: The Kerala High Court noted that proving former state Transport Minister Antony Raju’s intention to tamper with evidence in a 1990 drug case, when he was a junior lawyer, would be challenging.
Justice C. Jayachandran also inquired whether Raju’s senior lawyer was aware of any evidence tampering.
ALSO READ: Underwear Evidence Tampering Case: Kerala MLA Antony Raju Convicted in 33-Year-Old Case
During the proceedings, the court questioned how criminal liability could be assigned to Raju, with a senior government lawyer emphasizing the same concern. The court further asked how any motive or intention to tamper with evidence could be attributed to Raju, according to the lawyer.
The prosecution claimed that tampering occurred while the evidence was under Raju’s custody. These observations and questions arose during the hearing of Raju’s plea for the suspension of his conviction for evidence tampering, allowing him to participate in the upcoming Assembly elections.
Conversely, the state government argued that Raju “has failed to demonstrate any grave injustice or irreparable damage that would occur if the conviction remains in effect.” They also asserted that providing relief to Raju “would undermine the integrity of the electoral process.”
After considering arguments from both parties, the High Court reserved its decision on Raju’s plea. Raju is a leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress, a member of the CPI(M)-led LDF in Kerala, and had approached the High Court after the Thiruvananthapuram District and Sessions Court denied his request to suspend the conviction.
He received a three-year sentence of simple imprisonment from the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Court in Nedumangad for tampering with evidence while representing an Australian national arrested in a 1990 drug case. Following his conviction, the Kerala Legislative Assembly Secretariat issued a notification confirming his disqualification.
In his plea for suspension of the conviction, Raju argued that he is disqualified from holding office as a sitting member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly solely because of his conviction. He explained that, unlike a prison sentence, the disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act operates automatically and instantaneously, without the possibility of restitution unless the conviction is suspended.
The petition stated,
“The petitioner’s right to contest the upcoming general election to the state legislative Assembly is put in peril due to the conviction imposed on him via the judgment impugned in the criminal appeal, which is indefensible both on facts and law,”
He also contended that the magistrate’s conviction and sentence were contrary to law, facts, and evidence, claiming the court had made significant errors in evaluating the evidence.
Raju argued,
“The sentence passed by the court below is excessive and has not taken into consideration the delay of 35 years. The sentence was passed only to disqualify the petitioner under the Representation of the People Act.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES