Kerala HC quashes ‘underwear’ case towards Minister Antony Raju

By IANS

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the case of an alleged ‘underwear’ proof tampering towards State Transport Minister Antony Raju.

The court docket gave the decision on a plea moved by Raju to quash the case towards him.

The case dates again to the 12 months 1990 when Raju was a junior lawyer representing an Australian citizen Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, who was accused of smuggling cannabis by concealing it in his underwear.

When Cervelli approached the HC in attraction towards his conviction by a trial court docket greater than 30 years in the past, the underwear in query was discovered to have mysteriously shrunk in measurement, main the HC to acquit Cervelli of all fees.

Just a few years later, the investigating officer within the smuggling case, approached the HC in search of a probe into the alleged proof tampering.

Later, an FIR was registered towards Raju in 1994 on a criticism filed by an official of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

After 12 years of investigation, in 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a charge- sheet earlier than the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences beneath fees of prison conspiracy, dishonest and dishonestly inducing supply of property and inflicting disappearance of proof of offence.

It was Raju’s argument that the essential piece of “underwear evidence” was within the custody of the trial court docket whereas it was allegedly tampered with and, subsequently, it ought to have been the court docket in query that initiated the proceedings to look into the case.

But on this case, the proceedings had been initiated on the criticism of the police.

His plea identified that the court docket took cognizance of the case upon a cost sheet by the police and the police haven’t any authority to conduct an investigation in such instances.

The police additionally can’t file a cost sheet earlier than the court docket and the proceedings pending earlier than the court docket is ‘non-est’ (one that may be ignored altogether) within the eye of the legislation.

Expressing happiness over the decision, Raju mentioned he was focused politically by the then Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and a State Minister who was later defeated by him by going forward with the case.

“I knew I had done no wrong and now I am cleared and at this time I forgive those who worked against me,” mentioned Raju.

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the case of an alleged ‘underwear’ proof tampering towards State Transport Minister Antony Raju.

The court docket gave the decision on a plea moved by Raju to quash the case towards him.

The case dates again to the 12 months 1990 when Raju was a junior lawyer representing an Australian citizen Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, who was accused of smuggling cannabis by concealing it in his underwear.googletag.cmd.push(operate() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

When Cervelli approached the HC in attraction towards his conviction by a trial court docket greater than 30 years in the past, the underwear in query was discovered to have mysteriously shrunk in measurement, main the HC to acquit Cervelli of all fees.

Just a few years later, the investigating officer within the smuggling case, approached the HC in search of a probe into the alleged proof tampering.

Later, an FIR was registered towards Raju in 1994 on a criticism filed by an official of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

After 12 years of investigation, in 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a charge- sheet earlier than the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences beneath fees of prison conspiracy, dishonest and dishonestly inducing supply of property and inflicting disappearance of proof of offence.

It was Raju’s argument that the essential piece of “underwear evidence” was within the custody of the trial court docket whereas it was allegedly tampered with and, subsequently, it ought to have been the court docket in query that initiated the proceedings to look into the case.

But on this case, the proceedings had been initiated on the criticism of the police.

His plea identified that the court docket took cognizance of the case upon a cost sheet by the police and the police haven’t any authority to conduct an investigation in such instances.

The police additionally can’t file a cost sheet earlier than the court docket and the proceedings pending earlier than the court docket is ‘non-est’ (one that may be ignored altogether) within the eye of the legislation.

Expressing happiness over the decision, Raju mentioned he was focused politically by the then Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and a State Minister who was later defeated by him by going forward with the case.

“I knew I had done no wrong and now I am cleared and at this time I forgive those who worked against me,” mentioned Raju.