KERALA: In a setback to former Kerala transport minister and MLA Antony Raju, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Kerala High Court order and restored criminal proceedings initiated against him related to alleged tampering of evidence in the form of "underwear" in a drugs case conducted by him as a junior advocate in 1990. It was a case where hashish was found hidden in the underwear of an Australian citizen in 1990.

What did the Supreme Court say?

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol said the Kerala High Court erred in holding that criminal proceedings were barred under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the chargesheet against Raju. Noting that the case was three decades old, the Supreme Court bench ordered that the trial be completed within a year.

Who is Raju Janadhipathy?

The court also held that the Kerala High Court had not committed any mistake in ordering a fresh probe against Raju. It also rejected the argument that appellant MR Ajayan had no locus standi to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. Raju was a leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress, a constituent of the ruling LDF in Kerala. He was the Transport Minister till December 23 last year.

What is the underwear case, after all?

In September 1990, drugs (charas) were seized from an Australian citizen, hidden in his underwear pocket. The underwear was a piece of crucial evidence and was later returned to the accused as it was considered his personal belongings. Raju, as a junior lawyer, was representing an Australian citizen at the time and had taken the underwear.

Australian citizen was acquitted for wearing short underwear

The Australian national was initially convicted by the session’s court under the NDPS Act, but the Kerala High Court acquitted him, saying that the underwear did not fit the accused. To corroborate the defense's argument that the underwear was too small for the accused, the High Court also conducted a physical examination. During the arguments, it was also proposed that the underwear might have shrunk due to multiple washings and ironings.

These people including the former minister were also made accused

Though the high court acquitted the accused, it acknowledged the possibility of tampering with evidence and ordered a vigilance probe. An FIR was then registered in 1994. The final charge sheet was filed after the probe, naming Raju and a court employee as accused in the case, alleging conspiracy and tampering with material evidence. The final report lists offenses punishable under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 201 (destruction of evidence), 193 (punishment for giving false evidence), and 217 (disobedience to public servant) along with section 34 (criminal intention) of the Indian Penal Code against Raju and the court employee.

PC:Asianetnews