The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition requesting the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the ongoing evidence tampering case involving MLA Antony Raju. Justice Kauser Edappagath ruled that the trial had already commenced, and a Supreme Court directive required its completion within a year.
“Considering the fact that there is nothing to show that the present Public Prosecutor cannot adequately handle the case, the trial has already commenced, and there is a specific direction by the Supreme Court to complete the trial within one year, I am of the view that the request made by the petitioner for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor cannot be allowed,” the court stated.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Bars Reassessment of Time-Barred Cases Under KVAT Act Based on CAG Report
Trial Already in Progress
As per the submission of the Public Prosecutor, the trial has begun, and five key prosecution witnesses have already testified. The petitioner argued that the case was highly sensational, generating significant public interest, warranting the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under a 2014 circular issued by the Additional Chief Secretary. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that a request to include an offense under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) had not been acted upon by the Court or the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP).
The High Court held that the failure to add Section 409 to the charges did not indicate incompetence on the part of the Public Prosecutor. It emphasized that if the Magistrate had deemed the charge applicable, they could have returned the final report for further investigation. The Trial Court also had the power to order additional investigations before the trial began, and the investigating officer retained the right to conduct further inquiries at any stage.
“The Magistrate Court, while receiving the final report and taking cognizance, if it was of the view that Section 409 IPC was involved, could have returned the final report for further investigation. The trial court also had the authority to order further investigation before trial commencement,” the court noted.
The court referred to the 2014 government guidelines, which state that a Special Public Prosecutor should only be appointed if the existing Public Prosecutor is unable to manage the case effectively. The High Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the current Public Prosecutor lacked the competence to handle the case.
Read Also:- Kerala HC Recommends Training & Mentorship for Junior Advocates
Background of the Case
The case traces back to a 1990 drug seizure involving an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore, who was caught with charas hidden in his underwear. At the time, Antony Raju was a junior lawyer assisting in the defense of the Australian accused. The underwear was seized as evidence but was later returned to the accused, allegedly after being tampered with. This led to suspicions of evidence manipulation.
Initially, the Australian was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. However, the Kerala High Court later acquitted him on February 5, 1991, citing that the underwear presented as evidence did not match his size. This raised concerns about possible evidence tampering, prompting a vigilance inquiry.
After prolonged delays, a charge sheet was filed in 2006 against Raju and a court staff member under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 193 (false evidence), and 217 (public servant disobeying direction of law) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the trial remained pending for years.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Clarifies Special Rules vs. State & Subordinate Service Rules Conflict
Supreme Court’s Involvement
In 2022, Raju petitioned the High Court to quash the proceedings, arguing that the trial was barred under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Kerala High Court, on March 10, 2023, quashed the proceedings and directed the High Court Registry to initiate action under Section 195 CrPC.
Subsequently, Raju challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction. Another petitioner, M.R. Ajayan, also moved the Supreme Court seeking restoration of the case. On November 20, 2024, the Supreme Court reinstated the case at the Magistrate Court and ordered its completion within one year.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Ajit G. Anjarlekar, G. P. Shinod, Govind Padmanabhan, Gayathri S. B., Atul Mathews
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate C. K. Suresh (Sr. PP)
Case No: WP(Crl.) 81/ 2025
Case Title: Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and Others
