最高法院恢复喀拉拉邦前部长安东尼·拉朱内衣证据篡改案

此案可以追溯到1990年，当时一名名叫安德鲁·塞尔瓦托·塞尔维利 (Andrew Salvatore Cervelli) 的澳大利亚男子因涉嫌走私在特里凡得琅机场被捕

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

最高法院周三恢复了针对前喀拉拉邦部长安东尼·拉朱的所谓“内衣”证据篡改案。

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 驳回了喀拉拉邦高等法院撤销刑事诉讼的命令，理由是下级法院无法根据警方报告对所涉犯罪行为予以认定。

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质疑的裁决中澄清，其命令不会妨碍根据《刑事诉讼法》(CrPC) 第 195(1)(b) 条的规定进行起诉，并保留启动起诉的可能性。针对拉朱伪造证据的新行动和起诉。

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.

现在，最高法院恢复了初审法院的命令，承认警方的指控单，并指示在一年内完成审判。最高法院要求拉朱于 12 月 20 日出庭受审。

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.

该案可以追溯到1990年，当时一名名叫Andrew Salvatore Cervelli的澳大利亚男子因涉嫌将61.5克违禁品藏在内裤中而在特里凡得琅机场被捕。刚刚开始政治生涯的拉朱是一名在喀拉拉邦执业的年轻律师，他首先在初审法庭上代表塞尔韦利，法庭判定他有罪并判处他 10 年监禁。然而，当他向高等法院提出上诉时，发现涉案内衣太小，不适合塞尔韦利，他被无罪释放。

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.

但在塞尔韦利回到祖国几年后，情况发生了变化，根据从澳大利亚国家中心局收到的信息，走私案的调查人员向高等法院寻求调查，以查明是否有任何篡改行为。证据。

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 年针对 Raju 和一名法院书记员提出了刑事指控，经过 12 年的调查，2006 年，助理警察局长向特里凡得琅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。共谋、欺骗和不诚实地诱导交付财产，并导致犯罪证据消失。

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.

拉朱认为，关键的“内衣”证据由初审法院保管，但据称已被篡改，因此，应该由有关法院提起诉讼，但在本案中，根据警方的投诉启动了诉讼程序。他的抗辩指出，法庭是根据警方的指控书受理此案，警方无权对此类案件进行调查。他辩称，警方也不能向法庭提交指控单，而且从法律角度来看，法庭正在审理的诉讼程序是“非诉讼程序”（可以完全忽略）。