最高法院恢復喀拉拉邦前部長安東尼·拉朱內衣證據篡改案

此案可以追溯到1990年，當時一名名叫安德魯·塞爾瓦托·塞爾維利 (Andrew Salvatore Cervelli) 的澳洲男子因涉嫌走私在特里凡得瑯機場被捕

The Supreme Court on Wednesday restored the alleged "underwear" evidence tampering case against former Kerala Minister Antony Raju.

最高法院週三恢復了針對前喀拉拉邦部長安東尼·拉朱的所謂“內衣”證據篡改案。

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol set aside the order of the Kerala High Court which had quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that for the offence in question, the courts below could not have taken cognisance based on a police report.

法官 CT Ravikumar 和 Sanjay Karol 駁回了喀拉拉邦高等法院撤銷刑事訴訟的命令，理由是下級法院無法根據警方報告對所涉犯罪行為予以認定。

In its impugned decision, the Kerala High Court had clarified that its order would not be a bar on pursuing prosecution as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and left open the initiation of fresh action and prosecution against Raju for falsifying evidence.

喀拉拉邦高等法院在其受到質疑的裁決中澄清，其命令不會妨礙根據《刑事訴訟法》(CrPC) 第195(1)(b) 條的規定進行起訴，並保留啟動起訴的可能性。

Now, the Supreme Court restored the trial court order taking cognisance of the police charge sheet and directed the completion of the trial within a year. The top court asked Raju to appear before the trial court on December 20.

現在，最高法院恢復了初審法院的命令，承認警方的指控單，並指示在一年內完成審判。最高法院要求拉朱於 12 月 20 日出庭受審。

The case dates back to 1990 when an Australian man named Andrew Salvatore Cervelli was arrested at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly smuggling 61.5 grams of contraband by concealing it in his underwear. Raju, who had just begun his political career and was a young lawyer practising in Kerala, represented Cervelli first before the trial court, which convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment. However, when he moved the High Court in appeal, the underwear in question was found to have been way too small to fit Cervelli and he was acquitted.

該案可追溯到1990年，當時一名名叫Andrew Salvatore Cervelli的澳洲男子因涉嫌將61.5克違禁品藏在內褲中而在特里凡得瑯機場被捕。剛開始政治生涯的拉朱是一名在喀拉拉邦執業的年輕律師，他首先在初審法庭上代表塞爾韋利，法庭判定他有罪並判處他 10 年監禁。然而，當他向高等法院提出上訴時，發現涉案內衣太小，不適合塞爾韋利，他被無罪釋放。

But things changed after a few years of Cervelli returning to his home country, and based on information received from the Australian National Central Bureau, the investigating officer in the smuggling case approached the High Court seeking a probe to find out if there was any tampering of evidence.

但在塞爾韋利回到祖國幾年後，情況發生了變化，根據從澳大利亞國家中心局收到的信息，走私案的調查人員向高等法院尋求調查，以查明是否有任何篡改行為。 。

Soon, a criminal complaint was registered against Raju and a court clerk in 1994 and after 12 years of investigation, in 2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a charge sheet before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences under charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, and causing disappearance of evidence of the offence.

很快，1994 年針對Raju 和一名法院書記官提出了刑事指控，經過12 年的調​​查，2006 年，助理警察局長向特里凡得瑯附加首席司法治安法院提交了一份指控表，指控其犯有刑事罪行。

It was Raju's argument that the crucial piece of "underwear" evidence was in the custody of the trial court while it was allegedly tampered with and, therefore, it should have been the court in question that initiated the action, but in this case, the proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the police. His plea pointed out that the court took cognisance of the case upon a charge sheet by the police and the police have no authority to conduct an investigation in such cases. The police also cannot file a charge sheet before the court and the proceedings pending before the court is 'non-est' (one that can be ignored altogether) in the eye of the law, he had argued.

拉朱認為，關鍵的「內衣」證據由初審法院保管，但據稱已被篡改，因此，應該由相關法院提起訴訟，但在本案中，根據警方的投訴啟動了訴訟程序。他的抗辯指出，法庭是根據警方的指控書受理此案，警方無權對此類案件進行調查。他辯稱，警方也不能向法庭提交指控單，而且從法律角度來看，法庭正在審理的訴訟程序是「非訴訟程序」（可以完全忽略）。