With Saturday’s verdict, the magistrate court has concluded one of Kerala’s longest-running and most controversial evidence-tampering cases.
Published Jan 03, 2026 | 12:26 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 03, 2026 | 7:18 PM
Former Kerala Transport Minister Antony Raju. (Supplied)
Synopsis: The court held that Raju, who was then a practising lawyer at the Thiruvananthapuram District Court, had conspired with a court employee, Jose, to tamper with crucial evidence, thereby influencing the outcome of the case in favour of his client.
The Nedumangad Judicial First Class Magistrate Court on Saturday, 3 January, sentenced MLA and former Transport Minister Antony Raju to three years’ imprisonment in the sensational evidence tampering case.
Raju, the second accused in the case, was convicted along with Jose, a court clerk, and the first accused.
Both were sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment for destruction of evidence and for fabricating false evidence.
In addition, the court awarded six months’ imprisonment to both for criminal conspiracy and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on Raju.
The case relates to the alleged tampering and disappearance of crucial material evidence, including underwear, while it was in court custody, to weaken the prosecution case against an Australian national, accused of smuggling hashish concealed in his underwear.
The court held that the acts were aimed at deliberately creating circumstances for the accused to evade legal consequences.
The magistrate rejected the prosecution’s plea to commit the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court, proceeding instead to deliver the verdict.
With the conviction carrying a sentence exceeding two years, Raju is set to lose his MLA membership under the Representation of the People Act.
However, he was granted bail to enable him to file an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Jose, the court employee found guilty of colluding in the tampering of evidence, was also sentenced to identical terms of imprisonment.
Earlier in the day, the court found Raju guilty in the decades-old case involving the alleged tampering of court evidence in a narcotics trial dating back to the early 1990s.
Raju, currently the leader of the Janathipathya Kerala Congress and an ally of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF), was convicted for his role in manipulating material evidence submitted before a court in connection with a drug case registered against the foreigner, Andrew Salvatore.
The court held that Raju, who was then a practising lawyer at the Thiruvananthapuram District Court, had conspired with Jose to tamper with crucial evidence, thereby influencing the outcome of the case in favour of his client.
Raju was the transport minister for the first 2.5 years of the second Pinarayi Vijayan government in Kerala.
The magistrate court found both accused guilty under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 193 (false evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), and 34 (acts done in furtherance of common intention).
The court noted that the prosecution had successfully established that Raju and Jose acted in concert to remove the undergarment submitted as a material object, tampered with it, and later returned it in a form that undermined the prosecution case.
The most serious charge upheld was under Section 409 of the IPC, which carries a punishment ranging from 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment for breach of trust by a public servant.
Since Section 34 was also applied, the court observed that both accused would be liable to receive the same sentence. Sections 120B and 201 will also continue to apply, the court ruled.
Since the section invoked carries a possible punishment ranging from 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment to life term, the prosecution has moved an application seeking transfer of the case to the Thiruvananthapuram Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court.
In its submission before the Nedumangad trial court, the prosecution pointed out that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court does not have the jurisdiction to award sentences in cases where the maximum punishment prescribed extends to life imprisonment.
As per criminal procedure, such matters have to be tried by a court competent to impose the maximum sentence. Following the submission, the matter is expected to be placed before the Thiruvananthapuram CJM Court for further proceedings.
The case has its roots in April 1990, when Kerala Police detained Salvatore at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport and found hashish concealed in his underwear.
The police subsequently produced his belongings before a magistrate court, including the undergarment, which was marked as a key material exhibit.
While under judicial remand, Salvatore obtained court permission to reclaim his personal effects that were not directly connected to the prosecution.
According to investigators, court clerk Jose abused his official position and released the undergarment—despite it being central to the case—to Antony Raju, who was appearing as Salvatore’s counsel.
The prosecution alleged that Raju tampered with the garment and returned it to the court, falsely representing it as the original material object, in a deliberate attempt to weaken the prosecution’s evidence.
A trial court later convicted the Australian national under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
However, in 1991, the Kerala High Court overturned the conviction, noting that a practical test showed the undergarment produced before the court could not physically fit the accused—casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.
The matter lay dormant for years until it took a dramatic turn in 2005, when Victoria Police in Australia arrested Salvatore in a separate drug case.
During his incarceration, Salvatore allegedly told a police informant that he had evaded conviction in India by colluding with a lawyer and a court official to tamper with evidence.
Victoria Police passed this information to Interpol, which, in turn, alerted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The report was forwarded to the Kerala Police through the Crime Branch, eventually leading to the registration of a case against Raju and Jose.
Although the case progressed slowly for nearly two decades, the Kerala High Court in March 2023 quashed the proceedings, ruling that the magistrate had taken cognisance of the case in violation of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs prosecution for offences relating to court proceedings.
That verdict was overturned in November 2024 by the Supreme Court, which gave the case a fresh lease of life.
A bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol held that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of the law and that the proceedings were not barred under Section 195 of the CrPC.
The apex court directed the Nedumangadu magistrate court to resume the trial, ordered Raju to appear before it on December 20, 2024, and fixed a one-year deadline for completing the proceedings.
With Saturday’s verdict, the magistrate court has concluded one of Kerala’s longest-running and most controversial evidence-tampering cases, bringing a 35-year-old legal saga to a decisive stage and dealing a severe blow to a senior political figure who once held a Cabinet berth in the state government.
Raju described the tampering case as “politically motivated,” shortly after a magistrate court found him guilty.
Reacting to the verdict, Raju said he respected the judicial process but maintained his innocence.
“The case is politically motivated, case proceedings were resumed when Oommen Chandy was the Chief Minister. The case was suddenly filed against me in 2005,” he said. Raju added that he had never failed to appear before the court and reiterated his faith in the legal system.
“Innocent people are also punished in courts. Let the law take its own course,” Raju said.
Raju’s conviction has cast a long shadow over his political career.
The court’s decision to sentence him to three years’ imprisonment in the material evidence tampering case has triggered immediate legal and political consequences, including the likelihood of his disqualification as an MLA.
Under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, any public representative sentenced to more than two years in prison stands disqualified from the legislature from the date of conviction.
In Raju’s case, the verdict means he faces the imminent loss of his Thiruvananthapuram Assembly seat and a six-year bar from contesting elections, calculated from the date of his release after completing the sentence.
With the Assembly elections due later this year, the conviction virtually shuts the door on his immediate electoral prospects unless higher courts grant relief.
While Raju has the right to appeal before the High Court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, legal experts point out that higher courts usually stay the execution of the sentence, not the conviction itself.
Unless the guilty verdict is stayed, the disqualification will continue to operate.
The Assembly Secretariat is expected to move soon to formally notify of his disqualification.
The verdict has already begun reshaping political equations in Thiruvananthapuram Assembly Constituency.
Raju represents the seat on behalf of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress, an ally of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF).
With his legal troubles deepening, the CPI(M) is widely expected to step in directly to retain the constituency.
The Congress has signalled an aggressive bid to reclaim the seat, while the BJP is also looking to open its account in the constituency, setting the stage for a high-stakes triangular contest.
Leader of the Opposition VD Satheesan launched a scathing attack on Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan following the verdict.
He said the Opposition had repeatedly warned in the Assembly against appointing Raju as a minister when he was already an accused in the theft case.
“Pinarayi Vijayan made Antony Raju a minister, fully aware that he was accused in a serious criminal case. Despite the opposition taking a firm stand, he was retained as a minister for two and a half years,” Satheesan said.
He alleged that the case relating to the destruction of evidence was registered only because the court raised doubts over the acquittal of the foreign national.
“This government has once again proved that it shelters the accused. The LDF and CPI(M) are protecting those involved in serious crimes. Even in the Sabarimala gold robbery case, the accused languishing in jail continue to enjoy political protection,” Satheesan alleged.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Dileep V Kumar)
