Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case

Tampering with Judicial Evidence Strikes at the Heart of Justice, Supreme Court of India set aside the Kerala High Court’s decision to quash proceedings in Crime No. 215 of 1994 and C.C. No. 811 of 2014, reinstating criminal charges in a decades-old evidence tampering case. The case involved allegations of tampering with a key piece of evidence (underwear marked as Mo2) in judicial custody during the prosecution of an NDPS case against an Australian national.

The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, ruled that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC—which restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offenses except upon a complaint by the concerned court—was inapplicable when proceedings were initiated on judicial directions. It further ordered the trial court to conclude the case within one year, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

"Acts of tampering with judicial evidence not only compromise the principles of rule of law but also erode public trust in the judicial system. No procedural barrier, such as Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, should shield individuals accused of such egregious misconduct."[Para 28]

In 1990, Australian national Andrew Salvatore was arrested under the NDPS Act after 61.6 grams of charas were found in his possession at the Thiruvananthapuram airport. A key piece of evidence—Salvatore’s underwear (Mo2)—was seized and entrusted to judicial custody.

During his trial, the item was allegedly tampered with, resulting in a size mismatch. In 1991, the Kerala High Court, while acquitting Salvatore, observed that the evidence appeared to have been planted and directed an investigation into the matter.

1994: Following the High Court’s directive, an FIR (Crime No. 215/1994) was filed, alleging conspiracy and tampering of evidence by court personnel and advocate Antony Raju.

2006: A chargesheet was filed against accused No. 1 (a court clerk) and accused No. 2 (Antony Raju) under Sections 120B, 193, 201, 217, and 420 IPC, accusing them of altering Mo2 to help Salvatore evade conviction.

2022: The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings, citing procedural bars under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, but directed fresh steps to be initiated against the accused.

This led to two appeals before the Supreme Court:

M.R. Ajayan, a socially spirited journalist, challenged the quashing of proceedings.

Antony Raju, accused No. 2, challenged the High Court’s directive for fresh proceedings against him.

1. Does M.R. Ajayan Have Locus Standi to Challenge the High Court’s Order?

The Supreme Court upheld Ajayan’s locus standi, noting that the case involved grave allegations of evidence tampering and interference with judicial processes—matters of public interest.

Citing precedents such as P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Naveen Singh v. State of U.P., the Court observed that socially spirited individuals may intervene in criminal matters where the integrity of the justice system is at stake.

"Allegations of interference with judicial processes strike at the very foundation of the justice system. It is within the public interest to allow a socially spirited person to bring such issues to the attention of this Court."

[Para 19]

2. Does Section 195(1)(b) CrPC Bar the Proceedings?

Section 195(1)(b) CrPC restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offenses related to judicial records unless a complaint is filed by the concerned court. The Kerala High Court had quashed the proceedings, relying on this provision.

The Supreme Court, however, found the High Court’s interpretation flawed:

The FIR and subsequent proceedings were initiated on the Kerala High Court’s judicial directive in 1991, which supersedes the procedural bar under Section 195(1)(b).

The alleged tampering of Mo2 occurred while it was in judicial custody, striking at the administration of public justice.

Court’s Observation:

"Section 195(1)(b) CrPC aims to prevent frivolous complaints, but it cannot shield individuals accused of tampering with evidence under judicial custody. Judicial directives for investigation take precedence over procedural limitations."

[Paras 27-30]

3. Can the High Court Order De Novo Steps?

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to initiate fresh proceedings, citing the irregularities in the investigation and the need for retrial in cases involving procedural lapses.

The Court referred to Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, which permits retrial in exceptional cases where irregularities affect the administration of justice.

Court’s Observation: "Allegations of evidence tampering in judicial custody constitute exceptional circumstances justifying retrial or fresh proceedings to ensure justice." [Para 33]

Restoration of Criminal Proceedings: The Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order quashing the proceedings and reinstated Crime No. 215/1994 and C.C. No. 811/2014 before the trial court.

Public Interest and Judicial Integrity: It was emphasized that tampering with judicial evidence is a serious offense that undermines public confidence in the judicial system. Such actions demand strict judicial scrutiny.

Expeditious Trial Ordered: Given the significant delay of over 20 years, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within one year and ordered the accused to appear on December 20, 2024.

This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial integrity must not be compromised under procedural technicalities. By restoring the criminal proceedings and emphasizing the need for an expeditious trial, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message against interference in judicial processes.

Date of Decision: November 20, 2024