Underwear Tampering Case: SC Asks Kerala Govt If It's Hand-In-Glove With Accused MLA

The Supreme Court pulled up Kerala govt for not filing reply in a case pertaining to initiation of fresh criminal proceedings against MLA Antony Raju in the alleged underwear evidence tampering case.

In 2023, the top court had stayed the fresh criminal proceedings initiated against Raju for allegedly tampering underwear that was the key evidence in a drug smuggling case

Source : PTI, Twitter

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Kerala government for not filing a reply in a case pertaining to initiation of fresh criminal proceedings against Kerala MLA Antony Raju in the alleged underwear evidence tampering case.

A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal granted more time to the state government to file its counter-affidavit after grilling it for the delay.

"Why have you not replied yet? Is it because you are hand-in-glove with the accused?" Justice Bindal asked the Kerala government.

In 2023, the top court had stayed the fresh criminal proceedings initiated against Raju for allegedly tampering underwear that was the key evidence in a drug smuggling case. The apex court had sought Kerala's response in the matter.

What Is The Underwear Tampering Case?

Kerala MLAs and Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party leader Antony Raju moved the top court after the Kerala High Court quashed trial court proceedings against him on a technical ground, but ordered its Registry to initiate proceedings under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Following which, the Thiruvananthapuram trial court could restart criminal proceedings against Raju.

Kerala's former Transport Minister Raju is part of the ruling LDF coalition in Kerala. Raju is facing criminal proceedings under a three-decade-old case for evidence tampering in a drugs smuggling case.

In 1990, an Australian man named Andrew Salvatore Cervelli was arrested at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly smuggling 61.5 grams of charas by hiding it in his underwear.

Raju who was then a junior lawyer represented the accused Cervelli before the trial court. Cervelli was eventually convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

The underwear worn by the Cervelli was seized as evidence but was later returned to the accused due to it being considered his personal belonging. Raju had collected the underwear at that time.

When the trial court order was challenged in the high court, the underwear in which the drugs were allegedly smuggled was found to be too small to fit the accused Australian man. The high court then acquitted him and he returned to Australia.

The high court even conducted a physical test to verify if the underwear was too small for the accused Australian man. During the arguments, it was also contended that the underwear could have shrunk due to being washed and ironed multiple times.

Although the high court acquitted the Cervelli, it noted the possibility of evidence tampering and ordered a vigilance inquiry.

In 1994, a criminal complaint was filed against Raju and court clerk. In 2006, a charge sheet before the magistrate court.