Journalist Approaches Kerala HC Seeking Appointment Of Special Public Prosecutor In Evidence Tampering Case Against MLA Antony Raju

When the matter came up before Justice Kauser Edappagath on Wednesday (January 22) the court orally enquired about the petitioner's locus-standi to file the plea.

The petitioner said that he obtained the records of the case from the court and was instrumental in stirring up the judicial process in a case which was in the standby for 16 years. The petitioner added that he had also filed an intervention petition when the MLA approached the High Court to quash the proceedings in the case.

"In the said circumstances, the petitioner possesses the locus standi to prefer this instant petition; regard being had to the fact that the petitioner has a bona fide connection with the matter and has been instrumental in his efforts to advance substantial Justice," the plea states. 

The plea claims that the petitioner has reliably learnt that "due to extraneous reasons" the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) of the Trial Court has been relieved on a transfer request and a new a new APP has been appointed. The plea claims that the petitioner apprehends that extraneous reasons must have come into play regarding the transfer of the earlier APP.

The plea claims that an APP would not be able to conduct the prosecution of such a "high – profile and sensational" case, especially since an "Assistant Public Prosecutor is under the control of political forces and may be forced to yield to their diktats".

The petitioner also pointed out that even though he had filed a petition to add offence of IPC Section 409  (Criminal breach of trust by public servant) to the case, it was not done by the trial court or the APP.

The petitioner submits in his petition that a 2014 circular issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government contemplates that a Special Public Prosecutor can be appointed if the case is highly sensational and generates extensive public interest of such magnitude as to necessitate the appointment of a more competent Advocate of good standing, as a Special Public Prosecutor. 

The plea seeks a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2/3 Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary Home Department, to appoint Advocate Shine Dinesh or any other competent Advocate having the qualifications prescribed in the requisite circulars as the Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution in the case pending against Raju. 

The matter is posted for January 28. 

Background

The issue is related to a drug seizure case of 1990 against an Australian national Andrew Salvatore, who was found to be in possession of charas in the pocket of his underwear. Raju was then a junior of the lawyer who was representing the Australian accused. The underwear worn by the Australian was seized as a material object. Subsequently, the Court allowed return of the personal belongings of the Australian accused. The underwear, which was a material object in the case, was also returned. It was collected by Raju and later returned to the Court.

The sessions court convicted the Australian accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. However, in appeal, the Kerala High Court in its February 5, 1991 order acquitted the Australian national on the ground that the underwear was not of his size. 

Even though the High Court acquitted the accused, it observed that the possibility of tampering of evidence could not be ruled out and a vigilance inquiry was ordered. After much delay due to various reasons, a charge sheet was filed in 2006  arraying Raju and a court staff as accused in the case for the offences punishable under sections 120B,420,201,193 and 217 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial in the case remained pending for several years.

In 2022, Raju approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that cognizance in the present case could not have been taken due to the bar created under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 

The High Court on March 10, 2023 quashed the proceedings pending before the Magistrate Court and directed the High Court Registry to proceed against Raju as per procedure under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.

Against this order, Antony Raju approached the Supreme Court saying that High Court could not have directed the Registry to take steps under Section 195 Cr.P.C in proceedings that have already been quashed. Another person, one M.R. Ajayan also approached the Supreme Court against quashing of the proceedings. On November 20, 2024 the Supreme Court restored the case to the Magistrate Court and directed it to finish the trial within an year.

The plea was moved by Advocates Ajit G. Anjarlekar, G. P. Shinod, Govind Padmanabhan, Gayathri S. B., Atul Mathews

Case Title: Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(Crl.) 81/ 2025