In a setback to Antony Raju, former  Kerala transport minister and ruling LDF MLA , the Supreme Court on Wednesday revived criminal proceedings against him in an over two-decade-old evidence tampering case.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol held that the Kerala High Court erred in holding that the criminal proceedings were barred due to Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The apex court restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that took cognisance of the chargesheet against Raju. Taking into account the fact that the alleged offence dates back more than two decades, the Court directed that the trial be concluded within one year.

The case dates back to 1990, involving a drug seizure from an Australian national who was found in possession of  drugs concealed in the pocket of his underwear. At the time, Antony Raju was junior to the lawyer representing the Australian accused. The underwear was seized as a material object in the case, and later, the court allowed the return of the personal belongings of the accused, including the underwear. Raju collected the underwear and subsequently returned it to the court.

The sessions court subsequently convicted the Australian under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. However, on appeal, the Kerala High Court acquitted him because the underwear did not fit him. Despite the acquittal, the High Court observed the possibility of evidence tampering and ordered a vigilance inquiry. Following the inquiry, an FIR was registered in 1994, and a final report was filed the same year, naming Antony Raju and a court staff member as accused of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193, and 217 of the Penal Code

The trial in the case remained pending for many years, and in 2022, media reports highlighted the delay. This prompted Antony Raju to approach the High Court seeking a resolution.  The High Court  quashed the FIR on the grounds that cognisance cannot be taken on a police chargesheet in a case relating to the fabrication of evidence in a court proceeding. Acknowledging the serious nature of the offence, the high court, however, asked its registry to take appropriate action to pursue the complaint under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Two appeals were filed against this before the Supreme Court — one by a third person challenging the acquittal and the other by Raju against the high court direction that the complaint be pursued under relevant provisions of CrPC.

The Supreme Court’s ruling  on Wednesday,now reopens the criminal proceedings, bringing renewed focus to a case that has spanned over 30 years.