Kerala MLA Antony Raju disqualified after getting 3-yr jail in evidence tampering case

Nedumangad: The Nedumangad Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I on Saturday sentenced MLA Antony Raju to three years’ imprisonment after finding him guilty in the 1990 evidence-tampering case. The court sentenced the first accused, K S Jose, and the second accused, Antony Raju, to six months for criminal conspiracy, three years for causing the disappearance of evidence, three years for publishing false evidence, and two years for forgery.  The sentences shall run concurrently.

The first accused was also awarded one year's imprisonment and penalised with a fine of ₹5000 for criminal breach of trust by a public servant. Both of them were slapped with a fine of ₹10,000 for destroying evidence.

The court denied the petition filed by the prosecution to invoke section 325 of the CrPC to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court for a longer term of sentence and severe punishment. 

Advocate Sasthamangalam Ajith, who represented Antony Raju, said that an appeal will be filed in the District Court to obtain a stay on the sentence. The accused were later granted bail. 

Having been convicted, Antony Raju was immediately disqualified as an MLA as per section 8(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act. As per the provision, a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, other than any offence referred to in sub-sections of rules, shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. Antony Raju represents the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in the Assembly. 

In 2013, the Supreme Court had declared that Section 4 of the RP act was ultra vires the constitution (done beyond one's authority), which said disqualification will not take effect until three months have elapsed from the date of conviction, if an appeal is filed against the conviction and until the appeal is disposed of by the court.

Under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the RP Act, the disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction for any of the offences mentioned in the sub-sections. It remains in force for the periods mentioned in the subsection.

As per the SC judgement in 2013, any sitting member of parliament or state legislature convicted of any offences mentioned in relevant sections will not be protected by the sub-section (4) of the RP act. The disqualification is nullified only if a stay is obtained from the higher court both on the sentence and the conviction.

Kerala Assembly Secretariat sources said that Raju has been disqualified with the conviction, as per the SC order. The State Cabinet has sought the Governor's consent to hold an assembly session in January. Antony Raju cannot attend the assembly session, the officials said.

Public Prosecutor Adv PP Manmohan told the media that the court awarded the maximum punishment to the former minister.

 Reacting to the judgment, Opposition Leader VD Satheesan criticised Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan for appointing Raju as Transport Minister.

“Antony Raju had committed a serious crime. But Pinarayi Vijayan included him in his Cabinet and allowed him to continue as minister for two years. He should not even be considered as a candidate in elections,” Satheesan said.

Youth Congress and KSU activists are staging a protest outside the court, demanding the MLA's resignation. 

The case

Antony Raju, then a junior lawyer, represented the accused Cervelli. While a sessions court initially convicted Cervelli and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment, the Kerala High Court acquitted him in 1991.

The acquittal was primarily based on the defence argument that the underwear produced as evidence was too small to fit the accused. During the appeal, the court observed a physical demonstration where the garment failed to fit Cervelli, leading the bench to note a strong suspicion of evidence tampering.

The subsequent investigation revealed that Antony Raju had allegedly conspired with a court clerk named K Jose to obtain the underwear from the court's material objects room. It was alleged that Raju took the garment, had it re-stitched to a smaller size, and returned it to the court four months later to ensure it would not fit his client during the High Court hearing.