Background of the Case
Background of the Case: Ajayan v. The State of Kerala and Others
In April 1990, an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore intercepted at Thiruvananthapuram airport while traveling to Mumbai. He was found carrying two packets of charas (hashish), totalling almost 61.6 grams, hidden in his underwear. Following his arrest, the police confiscated these packets along with his things and stored them at the Valiyathura Police Station.
The appropriated objects were later presented before a Judicial First Class Magistrate, where a court clerk (referred to as Accused No. 1) was assigned to their custody. In July 1990, a petition was filed on behalf of Salvatore requesting the release of his personal properties. The court permitted this request, and the objects were handed over to his lawyer, identified as Accused No. 2 (Kerala MLA Antony Raju). Among the things returned was Salvatore’s underwear. Subsequently, Accused No. 2 returned the underwear to Accused No. 1, who then forwarded it to the Sessions Court as part of the evidence in the drug case.
The District Court convicted Salvatore under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), punishing him to 10 years of imprisonment and a grand fine of ₹1 lakh. However, upon appeal, the Kerala High Court acquitted him in 1991. During the appeal, a practical test conducted by the High Court revealed that the underwear did not match Salvatore’s size, leading the court to doubt that the evidence may have been made up. The High Court recommended a detailed investigation into the alleged tampering.
After, a Vigilance Officer investigated the matter and submitted a report suggesting further inquiry. In October 1994, based on the High Court’s recommendations, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against unknown persons for interfering with evidence. In 2006, a charge sheet was filed against the court clerk and the lawyer, accusing them of conspiring to manipulate the evidence to benefit Salvatore.
In 2022, both the court clerk and MLA Antony Raju approached the Kerala High Court, seeking to crush the criminal proceedings against them. They argued that under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Judicial Magistrate First Class lacked the authority to take cognizance of the case. The High Court accepted their plea, devastating the proceedings and directing a fresh approach to the allegations.
Legal Questions Raised Before the Supreme Court
The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, where the following critical issue was examined:
• Whether Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, which prohibits courts from taking cognizance of certain offenses without a formal complaint by the concerned court, was applicable to this case.
Supreme Court Observations and Ruling
- Locus Standi of M.R. Ajayan
The Court recognized M.R. Ajayan, the editor of Green Kerala News, as having the standing to file a Special Leave Petition. The Court emphasized that interference with judicial processes warrants the involvement of socially conscious individuals to safeguard the judiciary’s integrity. - Interpretation of Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC
o The Court clarified that while Section 195 creates a procedural bar on cognizance of certain offences, it should not hinder legitimate investigations.
o Since the proceedings originated from a judicial order (the High Court’s 1991 judgment) and not a private complaint, the procedural bar did not apply.
o The alleged tampering of evidence undermined the administration of justice, necessitating thorough scrutiny. - Public Interest Concerns
o The Court underlined the significant public interest involved in preserving the credibility of judicial processes.
o Allegations of evidence tampering strike at the heart of public trust in the judiciary and must be dealt with stringently. - Retrial in Exceptional Circumstances
o The Court held that retrials can be justified in exceptional cases where procedural lapses compromise the fairness of the trial.
o Protecting the principles of a fair trial and the pursuit of truth takes precedence over technicalities.
Final Verdict by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings. It restored the cognizance order and directed the Trial Court to expedite the case, concluding the trial within one year. The accused were ordered to appear before the Trial Court on December 20, 2024.
Legal Framework: Section 195 CrPC and Its Evolution under BNSS, 2023
Section 195 CrPC (Now Section 215 under BNSS, 2023)
This provision governs prosecutions related to contempt of lawful authority, offenses against public justice, and tampering with evidence presented in court. Key elements include:
- Bar on Cognizance
o Courts cannot take cognizance of specified offenses unless a formal complaint is filed by the concerned court or an authorized officer.
o This includes offenses committed during court proceedings or relating to documents in judicial custody. - Purpose and Scope
o Protects judicial integrity by preventing frivolous complaints.
o Applies to offenses that directly impact judicial proceedings or the discharge of public duties. - Exceptional Circumstances
o While the bar is mandatory, it does not shield genuine cases of judicial misconduct or obstruct legitimate inquiries.
Key Additions under BNSS, 2023
• Expands definitions to include tribunals under central and state acts.
• Provides clear guidelines on withdrawal of complaints.
• Maintains hierarchical clarity regarding appellate jurisdiction.
By maintaining these provisions, both CrPC and its successor BNSS aim to balance judicial accountability with procedural safeguards.
Leave a Reply