Kerala High Court calls for report on evidence tampering case against Transport Minister Antony Raju

Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. passed the Order on a petition seeking to expedite the trial in the case.

The Kerala High Court on July 29 called for a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangadu, in Thiruvananthapuram on the status of the evidence tampering case pending against Transport Minister Antony Raju. Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. passed the Order on a petition seeking to expedite the trial in the case.

The court in its Order said that the question of the maintainability of the petition could be considered after the detailed hearing. However, in the meantime, the court directed the High Court Registry to get a report from the magistrate court on the status of the case.

When the petition came up for hearing, the prosecution submitted that the petition was not maintainable as it had been filed by a third party. The petitioner, Geroge from Thrissur had no locus standi to move the court. If had any complaints he should have approached the magistrate court or the district court.

The court then asked could the court ignore the pleas of the petition when it had a bearing on the administration of justice. The trial got prolonged for many years. Could a right of the third party be denied when it came to expediting the trial, the court asked.

The prosecution case was that Mr. Raju in his earlier capacity as a lawyer of the accused Australian national in the narcotic smuggling case had aided the accused to tamper with the evidence to escape from the clutches of law. According to the petitioner, though the police had filed the charge sheet against Solaman Joseph of Peroorkada and Antony Raju in 2006 it had been pending since then without any trial.

Pending for 16 years, trial court offers to complete trial in case involving Kerala Minister in 3 months

He wanted the court to order an inquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance) into the delay in the trial of the case. The people had every right to know the fraud played in the case since those sitting at the helm of affairs were paid from the exchequer. The delay was is culpable and unjustifiable, the petitioner contended.