M.R. AJAYAN  [APPELLANT(S)]  Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.   [ RESPONDENT(S)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024

(2JB, C.T. RAVIKUMAR and SANJAY KAROL JJ., delivered by SANJAY KAROL J.)

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India restored criminal proceedings against Kerala MLA Antony Raju in an evidence-tampering case. The Court clarified that the bar on cognizance under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) did not apply since the proceedings were initiated pursuant to a judicial order rather than a private complaint. The decision was rendered by a bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, highlighting critical judicial interpretations on procedural bars and their exceptions.

The case dates back to 1990 when Antony Raju, then a junior lawyer, was accused of tampering with evidence in a drug-trafficking case. Specifically, Raju was alleged to have altered a piece of evidence, an underwear item, to sabotage the prosecution’s case against the accused. The Kerala High Court, in its judgment dated February 5, 1991, directed an investigation into the alleged planting of evidence, leading to further inquiries by a vigilance officer of the Court.

A chargesheet was filed in 2006, and the Judicial First-Class Magistrate (JFCM) took cognizance of the case. However, in 2022, Raju and a co-accused moved the Kerala High Court to quash the proceedings, citing the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. The High Court accepted their plea, quashing the proceedings but directing a de novo investigation. Dissatisfied, Raju and another party appealed to the Supreme Court.

Section 195(1)(b) CrPC prohibits courts from taking cognizance of certain offenses unless a complaint is filed by the court in which the alleged offense occurred. However, the Supreme Court reiterated the exception recognized in CBI v. Sivamani (2017), which holds that when a superior court directs an investigation into an offense covered under Section 195(1)(b), the procedural bar does not apply. The Court emphasized that the proceedings against Raju were initiated following a judicial order from the Kerala High Court and a subsequent letter from the District Judge, Trivandrum, rather than a private complaint. Hence, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC was not attracted.

Addressing the High Court’s contention that the proceedings stemmed from an administrative rather than a judicial order, the Supreme Court observed that no distinction exists between judicial and administrative orders under the framework of Section 195 CrPC when they emanate from a court. This observation solidified the validity of the chargesheet filed against Raju.

The Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s authority to direct a de novo investigation, citing precedents that empower appellate courts to order retrials in exceptional cases where material irregularities compromise the trial’s integrity. The Supreme Court dismissed objections regarding the locus standi of one of the appellants, MR Ajayan. It clarified that allegations of interference with the judicial process necessitated its intervention, regardless of procedural challenges to locus standi.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores its commitment to safeguarding judicial processes and upholding justice. By restoring the proceedings against Raju, the Court reinforced that procedural safeguards under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC are not absolute and can be bypassed in cases involving judicial orders. This ruling serves as a precedent in delineating the boundaries of procedural bars, ensuring accountability within the legal system.