New Delhi, November 20, 2024: In a critical judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the procedural bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not apply to cases initiated through judicial orders. The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, reinstated criminal proceedings against Advocate Antony Raju and a court clerk in a 1994 evidence tampering case. The Court emphasized that tampering with judicial evidence strikes at the foundation of justice and public trust in the judiciary.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an NDPS trial in 1990, in which Andrew Salvatore, an Australian national, was arrested at Thiruvananthapuram Airport for possessing 61.6 grams of charas. During the trial, the prosecution relied on Salvatore’s underwear (marked Exhibit Mo2) as evidence of drug concealment. However, during an appeal in 1991, the Kerala High Court found the garment to be of a size incompatible with the accused, leading to Salvatore’s acquittal.
The High Court suspected tampering with the evidence and directed a vigilance inquiry. This inquiry culminated in an FIR (Crime No. 215/1994) being filed against Advocate Antony Raju, who represented Salvatore during the trial, and a court clerk. The charges included criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), forgery (Section 463 IPC), and tampering with evidence (Section 193 IPC).
In 2023, the Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings, citing the procedural bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, which requires a written complaint from the court for prosecuting offenses related to evidence in judicial custody.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court addressed three significant legal questions:
- Applicability of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC: Does the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC apply to cases initiated through judicial orders or only to complaints by the court or its officers?
- Judicial vs. Administrative Orders: Can a judicial directive initiating an investigation satisfy the procedural requirement of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC?
- High Court’s Authority to Quash Proceedings: Did the Kerala High Court err in quashing the criminal proceedings and directing de novo steps for filing a complaint?
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Observations
The Bench ruled that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC was inapplicable in this case for the following reasons:
- Judicial Orders as Basis for Proceedings: The Court emphasized that the proceedings were initiated through a judicial order in 1991 by the Kerala High Court, directing an inquiry into the suspected tampering. This satisfied the procedural requirement under Section 195(1)(b) to protect against frivolous private complaints.
“The protection intended by the section against frivolous complaints is not applicable where the initiation stems from a judicial directive,” the Court observed. - Integrity of Judicial Processes: The Court underscored the gravity of tampering with evidence, stating that such acts erode public trust in the judiciary and compromise the administration of justice.
“Such actions strike at the very foundation of justice and fairness, which are essential to the judicial system,” the judgment noted. - Locus Standi of the Petitioner: Addressing objections to the locus of appellant M.R. Ajayan, a journalist and editor of Green Kerala News, the Court ruled that the case’s public interest justified his appeal.
- Erroneous Quashing by Kerala High Court: The Supreme Court rejected the Kerala High Court’s reasoning that the lack of a formal court complaint invalidated the proceedings. It clarified that judicial and administrative orders carry equal weight under Section 195(1)(b).
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court’s decision, reinstating the criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 811/2014) against the accused. Key directives included:
- Restoration of Proceedings: The Court restored the case to the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad, with a directive to conclude the trial within one year.
- Appearance of Accused: The accused, including Advocate Antony Raju, were instructed to appear before the trial court on December 20, 2024.
- Expeditious Trial: The Bench stressed the need for speedy disposal, considering the case’s pendency since 1994.
The appeal filed by M.R. Ajayan was allowed, while the appeal filed by Advocate Antony Raju challenging the High Court’s directive for a fresh complaint was dismissed.
Case Details
- Case Name:
- M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Antony Raju v. State of Kerala & Anr.
- Case Numbers:
- SLP (Crl.) No. 4887/2024
- SLP (Crl.) No. 7896/2023
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
- Key Legal Provisions:
- Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure
- Sections 120B, 193, 217, 463 IPC
