Today, the Kerala High Court quashed Criminal Proceedings against Antony Raju, the State Transport Minister and leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party.

The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, in his Vedict, clarified that this would not preclude the court concerned from taking up the matter and pursuing the prosecution in compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"Though this court interfered with the proceedings for technical reasons it cannot be ignored that the allegations raised are serious in nature. The materials placed before this court reveal allegations which are of such nature and gravity that interfere with judicial functions and thereby pollute the mechanism of administration of justice. Such acts are required to be dealt with strictly and with all vigour and this court expects a positive and effective follow-up action on this from the authorities concerned, to ensure that a fair trial in accordance with the law takes place and the culprits are punished adequately." the court said.

Raju was in connection with the evidence tampering case against Minister Nedumangad, in Thiruvananthapuram. Advocates Deepu Thankan, the Counsel member of Antony Raju submitted a plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case against him.

The court had previously stayed all further proceedings against Raju in the evidence tampering case on the prima facie finding that the procedure stipulated under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with in respect of an offence under Section 193 (Punishment for False Evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. The court had observed that under Section 195(1) CrPC any proceedings related to Section 193 IPC and the conspiracy to conduct the same could only be conducted on the basis of a complaint of the concerned court or the officer authorized by a court or a subordinate court.

Case Brief:

In the Said matter, in the year 1990, Raju was a junior lawyer representing an Australian man, Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, who was accused of smuggling hashish to India by concealing it in his underwear.

When the accused moved to the High Court, in an appeal against his conviction by a trial court over 30 years ago, the underwear in question was found to have mysteriously shrunk in size, leading the High Court to acquit Cervelli of all charges.

Later, the IO approaches the High Court and FIR was lodged against Raju n 1994 on a complaint filed by the Sheristadar of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram

After 12 years of investigation, in 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a charge sheet before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offenses under sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 201(causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 193, 217, and 34 of the IPC

"However, in the case of the petitioner, the prosecution has been initiated by the Police and not by the Court, which is per se illegal and the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense if the complaint is not by the Court, as the offense is alleged is section 193 of the IPC," the plea said.

He submitted that section 195 CrPC creates a bar in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the Police and no court shall take cognizance of the offence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint filed by the Court.

"Admittedly the court took cognizance of the matter upon a charge sheet by the police and the police have no authority to conduct an investigation in such cases and file a charge sheet before the court. Thus the proceedings pending before the court is nonest in the eye of law," the plea stated.