Kochi, March 17 The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea of former state Transport Minister Antony Raju seeking suspension of his conviction in a case of tampering with evidence, saying that it was "neither in the interest of the law nor in the public interest".
Justice C Jayachandran observed that the statutory mandate in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with regard to disqualification of convicted legislators "must be respected and cannot be overturned by judicial interference" except to the limited extent permissible by law, and that too, "for weighty and lofty reasons".
Justice Jayachandran said the interdictory mandate in the Act has the definite purpose of keeping away from public life, those persons whose credibility has been "stained and tainted" by a conviction for specified offences or a sentence for a period more than two years.
The judge also said that courts of law should be "slow and doubly cautious" in ensuring that such suspension or stay is granted only in befitting cases, since it virtually overturns a statutory mandate.
"Therefore, it is neither in the interest of law, nor in the public interest to stay or suspend a conviction merely for the reason that the accused is an MLA or an MP and that his future chances of contesting election are in jeopardy."
"Such jeopardy is nothing but a statutory legal consequence, emanating from the judgment of conviction, duly entered into by a competent court, in accordance with the due process of law," the High Court said.
It also said that there was no manifest or palpable error on the face of the record to warrant an interference with the conviction.
The HC noted that according to the trial court decision convicting and sentencing Raju to three years imprisonment, he "indulged in a very nefarious conduct involving moral turpitude" by tampering with a material object which was in legal custody.
It also rejected the argument on behalf of the former minister that if there was a 50-50 chance of the accused being acquitted, the conviction is liable to be suspended.
It said that it was "not prima facie satisfied that there exists even a fifty-fifty chance of the accused getting ultimately acquitted".
"This court is also of the opinion that such an exercise, by meticulous analysis of the evidence adduced and its sufficiency, cannot be undertaken at this stage."
"Secondly, it is a doubtful proposition that the conviction is liable to be suspended, assuming arguendo that there exists a fifty-fifty chance of an acquittal," the High Court said, dismissing the plea moved by Raju, a leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress -- a constituent of the CPI(M)-led ruling LDF in Kerala.
The High Court also compared Raju's situation with that of Navjot Singh Sidhu who had resigned from his position as MP on being convicted for a road-rage incident, saying that the former cricketer chose to adopt a moral path and set high standards in public life.
"Per contra, in the instant facts, the petitioner/A2 (Raju) - on the allegations sustained by the trial court - has indulged in a very nefarious conduct involving moral turpitude, by tampering with a material object, which was in custodia legis," it said.
For these reasons, the High Court said it finds no infirmity in the sessions court order declining to suspend Raju's conviction.
Raju had moved the High Court against the sessions court order.
He was sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Court, Nedumangad, in a case related to tampering with evidence while appearing as a lawyer for an Australian national arrested in a drug case in 1990.
Following his conviction, the Kerala Legislative Assembly Secretariat issued a notification confirming his disqualification as MLA.
Raju represented the Thiruvananthapuram Central Assembly constituency.
In his plea before the High Court, Raju had said the application for suspension of conviction was filed because, as a sitting member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, he stood disqualified from holding office solely due to the conviction.
According to him, unlike a sentence of imprisonment, the disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act is self-operating and instantaneous, leaving no scope for restitution unless the conviction itself is suspended.
He had also contended that the conviction and sentence passed by the magistrate's court were against the law, facts, and evidence, and contended that the court had committed grave errors in the appreciation of evidence.
"The sentence passed by the court below is excessive and has not taken into consideration the delay of 35 years. The sentence was passed only to disqualify the petitioner under the Representation of the People Act," the petition had said.
