Supreme Court Upholds Prosecution in Evidence Tampering Case: M.R. Ajayan vs. State of Kerala (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20th November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 881
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar J., Sanjay Karol J.

Can a criminal case be thrown out because the court didn’t file a formal complaint about evidence tampering? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question, along with whether a concerned citizen can challenge a court’s decision to drop such a case. This judgment clarifies the rules for prosecuting those who interfere with court evidence and the role of public-spirited individuals in ensuring justice. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, with Justice Sanjay Karol authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case began in 1990 when an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore, was arrested at Thiruvananthapuram airport for possessing charas. The seized drugs and his personal belongings, including his underwear, were placed in police custody. Later, the court allowed the release of Salvatore’s personal items. A junior lawyer, Antony Raju, received these items, including the underwear. This underwear was later returned to the court and marked as evidence (Exhibit Mo2). During Salvatore’s appeal, the High Court found that the underwear was not his size, suggesting it had been tampered with. The High Court ordered an inquiry into this matter.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Following the High Court’s order for an inquiry, an FIR was registered in 1994 against a court clerk, Jose, and the lawyer, Antony Raju, for allegedly conspiring to alter the underwear to ensure it would not fit Andrew Salvatore. A chargesheet was filed in 2006. In 2022, both accused filed petitions in the High Court of Kerala to quash the proceedings, arguing that the court could not have taken cognizance of the case due to Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court agreed, quashing the proceedings but directing its registry to take action under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., which states that a court cannot take cognizance of certain offences, including those related to false evidence and forgery, if those offences were committed in relation to a court proceeding, unless the court itself files a complaint. Specifically, Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. states:

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance —
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, section 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub -clause (I) or sub -clause (ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.”

The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) include: Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 193 (giving false evidence), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), Section 217 (public servant disobeying direction of law), Section 420 (cheating), and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

Arguments

Arguments of M.R. Ajayan:

• M.R. Ajayan, a socially spirited person and editor of “Green Kerala News,” argued that he had the right to appeal the High Court’s decision because the case involved serious allegations of tampering with judicial processes.
• He contended that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, as the matter pertained to interference with the administration of justice, a matter of public interest.

Arguments of Antony Raju:

• Antony Raju, the accused, argued that the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings because the court had not filed a complaint as required under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
• He further argued that the High Court could not have directed a de novo (new) trial against him after quashing the initial proceedings.
• He relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr., National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. and Amanuallah & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. to argue that third parties cannot be permitted to prefer appeal in criminal proceedings.

Arguments of the State of Kerala:

• The State argued that the High Court’s order was incorrect because the case involved a serious offense of tampering with evidence, which is a matter of public interest.
• The State contended that the High Court should not have quashed the proceedings based on a technicality.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether M.R. Ajayan has the locus standi to prefer this Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court’s order?
2. Whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings to be barred under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.?
3. Whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to be taken against the appellant, Antony Raju?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On Locus Standi:

• P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141, Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the locus standi of a private individual seeking the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599, Supreme Court of India: This case clarifies that an appeal by a private individual can be entertained sparingly and after due vigilance.
• Amanuallah & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 699, Supreme Court of India: This case elaborates on the concept of locus standi, stating that third parties with a bona fide connection to the matter can maintain an appeal to advance substantial justice.
• Naveen Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 6 SCC 191, Supreme Court of India: This case held that in cases concerning tampering with court orders, locus standi is not significant when the state does not carry the matter forward.

On Section 195 Cr.P.C.:

• Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998) 2 SCC 493, Supreme Court of India: This case explains the mandatory nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and its purpose to prevent false or frivolous proceedings.
• M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 278, Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the three categories of offenses covered by Section 195 Cr.P.C.
• Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370, Supreme Court of India: This case outlines the scheme of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and its application.
• Perumal v. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377, Supreme Court of India: This case clarifies that High Courts can exercise jurisdiction under Section 195(1) either on application or suo motu.
• CBI v. M. Sivamani (2017) 14 SCC 855, Supreme Court of India: This case states that the bar under Section 195(1)(a) does not apply when the High Court directs an investigation into a specified offense.

On Retrial:

• Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (2022) 2 SCC 89, Supreme Court of India: This case lays down the principles for directing a retrial, emphasizing that it should be done in exceptional circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice.
• Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 984, Supreme Court of India: This case summarizes the power of an appellate court to order a retrial, stating that it should only be done when the irregularities are so material that a retrial is the only option.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice, and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
• Sections 120B, 193, 201, 217, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections deal with criminal conspiracy, giving false evidence, causing disappearance of evidence, public servant disobeying direction of law, cheating and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. [1980] 3 SCC 141*: The Court relied on this case to establish that a private individual can seek the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. [2010] 12 SCC 599*: The Court used this case to support the view that an appeal by a private individual can be entertained sparingly and with due vigilance.
• Amanuallah & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [2016] 6 SCC 699*: The Court cited this case to explain that any third party with a bona fide connection with the matter can maintain an appeal to advance substantial justice.
• Naveen Singh v. State of U.P. [2021] 6 SCC 191*: The Court followed this case to emphasize that locus standi is not important when the State does not carry forward the matter, especially in cases of tampering with court orders.
• Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar [1998] 2 SCC 493*: The Court referred to this case to highlight the mandatory nature of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
• M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr. [2000] 1 SCC 278*: The Court cited this case to explain the three categories of offences covered under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
• Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. [2005] 4 SCC 370*: The Court relied on this case to understand the scheme of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
• Perumal v. Janaki [2014] 5 SCC 377*: The Court used this case to support the view that High Courts can exercise jurisdiction under Section 195(1) either on application or suo motu.
• CBI v. M. Sivamani [2017] 14 SCC 855*: The Court distinguished this case from the present one but ultimately followed its principle that the bar under Section 195(1)(a) does not apply when the High Court directs an investigation.
• Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab [2022] 2 SCC 89*: The Court cited this case to explain the principles for directing a retrial, emphasizing that it should be done in exceptional circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice.
• Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 984*: The Court relied on this case to summarize the power of an appellate court to order a retrial, stating that it should only be done when the irregularities are so material that a retrial is the only option.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that those who tamper with evidence are brought to justice. The court emphasized that interference with judicial proceedings is a serious matter that undermines public trust and the rule of law. The court also noted that the proceedings were initiated based on a judicial order from the High Court, not a private complaint, which made the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. inapplicable.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects (40%).

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s view that the case was barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the proceedings were initiated based on a judicial order from the High Court, not a private complaint. The Court also held that the High Court did not err in ordering a de novo trial, given the seriousness of the alleged tampering with evidence.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent frivolous complaints by private individuals, not to hinder legitimate prosecutions initiated by the court itself or its superior. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s direction for an inquiry and subsequent FIR was akin to a complaint by a court, thus making the bar inapplicable. The Supreme Court also stressed the importance of public interest in ensuring that those who interfere with judicial processes are brought to justice.

“The case at hand , which has been quashed by the High Court, involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice.”

“The alleged act is a glaring occurrence where the process of criminal prosecution stands interfered with, impugning upon the sanctity of judicial proceedings, resulting in a travesty of justice.”

“Such actions not only erode public trust in the judicial system but compromise the principles of the rule of law and fairness, which are essential for the justice delivery system.”

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that those who tamper with evidence are held accountable. The court also considered the fact that the proceedings were initiated based on a judicial order from the High Court, not a private complaint, which made the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. inapplicable. The court also noted that the High Court did not err in ordering a de novo trial, given the seriousness of the alleged tampering with evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Locus Standi: Socially spirited individuals can challenge decisions in criminal cases, especially those involving interference with judicial processes.
• Section 195 Cr.P.C.: The bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. does not apply when proceedings are initiated based on a judicial order from a superior court.
• De Novo Trial: A High Court can order a de novo trial in cases where there is a serious miscarriage of justice, such as tampering with evidence.
• Public Interest: Cases involving interference with judicial processes are matters of public interest, and the courts must ensure that such offenses are prosecuted.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings. It also sets a precedent for allowing socially spirited individuals to challenge decisions that undermine the administration of justice. This will likely lead to more scrutiny of cases involving tampering with evidence and ensure that such offenses are not dismissed on technical grounds.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one year from the date of the judgment. The accused were directed to appear before the Trial Court on December 20, 2024, or on the next working day of the Court concerned.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. does not apply when the proceedings are initiated based on a judicial order from a superior court. This clarifies the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b) and ensures that offenses involving tampering with evidence in court proceedings are not dismissed on technical grounds. The judgment also reinforces the principle that socially spirited individuals can have locus standi in cases involving public interest and interference with the judicial process. This ruling clarifies the law and provides a framework for future cases involving similar issues.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M.R. Ajayan and dismissed the appeal filed by Antony Raju. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, restoring the trial proceedings against the accused for tampering with evidence. The Court clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. does not apply when proceedings are initiated based on a judicial order from a superior court. This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings and ensuring that those who tamper with evidence are brought to justice. The Court also directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one year.