Former MLA Antony Raju Moves Kerala High Court Against Order Rejecting His Plea To Quash Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case
Former Member of Legislative Assembly Antony Raju has moved the Kerala High Court seeking to set aside the order of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram that rejected his application to quash his conviction in the Evidence Tampering case.
Raju was arrayed as the second accused in a 2014 crime for having committed the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193 and 217 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case was that Raju entered into a conspiracy with the 1st accused, the Clerk in charge of the property section of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram with the intention of tampering with the evidence in a NDPS case so as to secure the acquittal of an Australian national.
Raju, who was the defence counsel for the Australian man, was pronounced guilty by the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I Nedumangad. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months for the offence under Section 120B; 3 years with Rs.10,000/- fine for the offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 for 3 months; 3 years for the offence under Section 193 r/w Section 34; 2 years for the offence under Section 465 r/w Section 34. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Subsequently, he moved the Sessions Court challenging the conviction. Though the Sessions Court suspended the execution of the sentence, it dismissed his application to quash the conviction. Aggrieved, he has come before the High Court challenging the dismissal.
According to Raju, the precedents in law point that in cases where the ramification of keeping the conviction alive during pendency of appeal is irreconcilable, the appellate court can suspend conviction. The present case, where a candidate is barred from contesting in an election because of a conviction that is challenged in appeal, constitutes an irreversible injury that cannot be monetarily compensation.
“The application for suspension of conviction was preferred in view of the fact that the petitioner being a sitting member of Kerala State Legislative Assembly, stands disqualified from holding office solely due to the conviction. Unlike a sentence of imprisonment, the disqualification under Section 8(3) of the representation of People's Act is self working and instantaneous, giving no scope for restitution, unless the conviction itself is suspended. The petitioner's right to contest the upcoming general election to the State Legislative Assembly is put to peril due to the conviction imposed on him vide the judgment impugned in the Criminal Appeal, which is indefensible both on facts and law. It is apposite in this context, to point out that the petitioner had earlier served as a Minister in the State Cabinet as well,” the plea states.
He has thus prayed for setting aside of the Sessions Court's order and to allow his application for suspending the conviction.
The petition is moved by Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates Aaron Zacharias Benny, M. Revikrshnan, P.M. Rafiq, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Sruthy N. Bhat, Sruthy K.K., K. Aravind Menon, Sona Maria Biju
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 1627/2026
Case Title: Antony Raju v. State of Kerala