Kerala MLA : Antony Raju was convicted in the “underwear tempering” case after 36 years

Kerala MLA: In a stunning turn of events, a local court in the suburb of Thiruvananthapuram found former Transport Minister and Kerala’s Left Front lawmaker Antony Raju guilty on Saturday of the notorious “underwear evidence tampering” case, ending a three-and-a-half-decade legal battle.

Punishments for the accusations that have been established against the accused range from 10 years to life in prison. The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court has been asked by the prosecution to administer sentence. Antony Raju and the other accused would be sent in prison if this motion is granted.

The event happened 36 years ago, despite the fact that the judgment was rendered 19 years after the charge sheet was submitted. Jose, the court clerk, is the first accused in this case; Raju is the second. Nearly a year has passed since the Supreme Court overturned a Kerala High Court ruling in November 2024 that had halted Raju’s criminal charges.

The case began in 1990 when Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, an Australian, was detained at the Thiruvananthapuram airport on suspicion of trying to smuggle 61.5 grams of illegal goods in his underpants. Raju, a young attorney just beginning his political career, made an appearance as Cervelli’s attorney.

Cervelli was found guilty by the trial court and given a ten-year jail term. But in a stunning turn of events, the Kerala High Court dismissed Cervelli’s appeal after concluding that the evidence—underwear—was too tiny for him, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.

After that, Cervelli went back to Australia. Years later, the investigating officer went to the High Court to request an investigation into the suspected manipulation of significant evidence after receiving information from the Australian National Central Bureau.

As a result, Raju and a court clerk were charged with a crime in 1994. Following a 12-year investigation, Raju was charged by the Assistant Commissioner of Police in 2006 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Thiruvananthapuram with criminal conspiracy, cheating, dishonestly causing the disappearance of evidence, and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.

Raju contested the proceedings, claiming that only the court could have taken action under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC and that the contested underwear was in the trial court’s possession at the relevant period. He argued that the procedures were legally unsustainable since the police lacked the jurisdiction to conduct an investigation or submit a charge sheet in such a circumstance.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s acceptance of this reasoning, restarting the prosecution and paving the way for the judgment that would cause Raju immense suffering.