The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that it would be difficult to prove that former state Transport Minister Antony Raju had the intention to tamper with evidence in a 1990 drug case when he was a junior lawyer. The observations and posers from the High Court came during the hearing of Raju's plea seeking suspension of his conviction for evidence tampering so that he can contest in the upcoming Assembly polls.
The Kerala government reportedly maintains that the former minister "has failed to demonstrate any grave injustice or irreparable damage that would occur if the conviction is allowed to operate."
Raju was sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Court, Nedumangad, in a case related to tampering with evidence while appearing as a lawyer for an Australian national arrested in a drug case in 1990. Following his conviction, the Kerala Legislative Assembly Secretariat issued a notification confirming his disqualification.
Justice C Jayachandran also asked whether Raju's senior lawyer was aware of the evidence tampering.
The court, during the hearing, asked how a criminal liability can be fastened upon him, a senior government lawyer said.
The court also asked how any motive or intention to tamper with evidence can be attributed to Raju, the lawyer said.
The prosecution told the court that the evidence had been tampered with when it was in Raju's custody.
It also told the High Court that granting him the relief "would undermine the integrity of the electoral process."
After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court reserved its order on the plea by Raju, a leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress, a constituent of the CPI(M)-led LDF in Kerala.
He had moved the High Court after the Thiruvananthapuram District and Sessions Court declined to suspend his conviction.
In his plea to the High Court, Raju has said the application for suspension of conviction was filed because, as a sitting member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, he stood disqualified from holding office solely due to the conviction.
According to him, unlike a sentence of imprisonment, the disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act is self-operating and instantaneous, leaving no scope for restitution unless the conviction itself is suspended.
"The petitioner's right to contest the upcoming general election to the state legislative Assembly is put in peril due to the conviction imposed on him via the judgment impugned in the criminal appeal, which is indefensible both on facts and law," the petition said.
He has also contended that the conviction and sentence passed by the magistrate court were against the law, facts, and evidence, and alleged that the court had committed grave errors in the appreciation of evidence.
