Kerala MLA Sentenced to Three Years Imprisonment in Evidence Tampering Case, to Be Disqualified As Legislator
Thiruvananthapuram: A first-class judicial magistrate court in Kerala on Saturday sentenced LDF MLA and former transport minister Antony Raju to three years’ imprisonment in connection with the evidence tampering case.
Nedumangad First Class Judicial Magistrate Court convicted him in the 1990 evidence tampering case. Following the decision, Antony Raju, who represents Thiruvananthapuram assembly constituency, will be disqualified as MLA.
Raju was convicted on charges of tampering with evidence, conspiracy and giving false evidence under Sections 120 B, 201, 193, 409 and 34 of the IPC.
K Jose, the first defendant in the case and a court employee, was also sentenced to 3 years in prison.
The prosecution said that the court gave the maximum penalty to the MLA in the case.
Meanwhile, the state assembly secretariat will issue a notification declaring Antony Raju disqualified from the post of MLA following the verdict.
He will be barred from participating in elections for the next six years under the Representation of the People Act.
Details of the case
The case involves Australian national Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, who was arrested along with 61.6 grams of Charas at Thiruvananthapuram airport.
Paralegal Antony Raju represented the defendant Cervelli. The court sentenced the defendants to 10 years in prison. The Supreme Court later acquitted him in 1991.
The acquittal was based on the defense argument that the underwear presented as evidence was too small to fit the defendant.
On appeal, the Court observed a physical demonstration that the underwear did not fit Cervelli, after which the court raised strong suspicion of tampering with evidence.
Investigation later revealed that Antony Raju allegedly conspired with court clerk K Jose to retrieve the undergarments from the court’s material objects room.
The allegation was that after receiving Antony Raju’s underwear, he had them tailored to a smaller size so that they would not fit his client and returned them four months later, during the hearing in the Supreme Court.
