In a setback to former LDF minister Antony Raju, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to suspend his conviction in a 1990 evidence-tampering case.
A single bench of Justice C. Jayachandran dismissed Antony Raju’s plea seeking a stay on his conviction by a trial court in a case in which he was charged with tampering with evidence kept in court custody to benefit an Australian national arrested for allegedly possessing drugs.
The High Court opined that there were no serious flaws in the judgment convicting Antony Raju to warrant suspension of the conviction.
“Therefore, in the absence of a serious infirmity or a fundamental flaw, probabilising preponderantly a possible interference with the judgment, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused, the judgment of conviction is not liable to be stayed/suspended,” the Court said.
With this order, Antony Raju would not be eligible to contest the upcoming Assembly elections in Kerala unless the Supreme Court overturns it. Antony Raju is the leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party, which is part of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) coalition in Kerala. He was elected to the Assembly from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in 2021.
Antony Raju was convicted on January 3 by the Nedumangadu Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I in the evidence-tampering case, which has a history spanning over three decades.
His appeal against the conviction is pending before a sessions court. While the sessions court suspended his jail sentence, it declined to suspend his conviction, which effectively keeps Raju disqualified from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA).
Dismissing Antony Raju’s plea against the sessions court’s decision, the court on Tuesday said it has to take a cautious approach when considering such cases where the consequence of conviction is to be barred from being an elected representative of the people.
“When the law is settled, that suspension/stay of conviction can only be in exceptional circumstances. I am of the opinion that, when it comes to a suspension/stay of conviction, in the context of the interdiction under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, courts of law should be slow and doubly cautious in ensuring that such suspension/stay is granted only in befitting cases, since it virtually overturns a statutory mandate,” the court said.
The case against Antony Raju stemmed from another case dating back to 1990, when an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, was arrested at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly smuggling 61.5 grams of charas concealed in his underwear.
Cervelli was initially convicted by a trial court. However, on appeal, the High Court of Kerala noted that the underwear produced as material evidence was smaller than the size recorded at the time of seizure. Taking note of this discrepancy, the court acquitted Cervelli.
Subsequent information received from the Australian National Central Bureau indicated that the underwear produced as evidence in the Cervelli case may have been altered while in court custody.
A criminal case was registered in 1994 against Antony Raju, who was then a practising lawyer and had represented Cervelli. A case was also lodged against a court clerk, KJ Jose, and a chargesheet was filed in 2006.
The proceedings were later revived following orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the trial resumed.
In January this year, the trial court found Raju guilty under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 193 (fabricating false evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
In his plea before the High Court, Raju argued that the sessions court was wrong in holding that no irreparable harm would be caused if his conviction was not stayed.