ANTONY RAJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the second accused in C.C.No.811/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court No.1, Nedumangadu. As per Annexure-1 judgment dtd. 3/1/2026, he was convicted, along with the 1 st accused, for offences under Ss. 120B, 420, 201, 193 and 217, read with Sec. 34, of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner preferred Annexure-2 appeal before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, numbered as Crl.A.No.10/2026. Along with the Appeal, the petitioner/A2 preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, bearing No.2/2026, seeking suspension of conviction under Sec. 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sahhita, 2023. The same was dismissed vide Annexure-4 Order dtd. 17/2/2026, which is impugned in the instant miscellaneous case.

(2.) Heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu - learned Senior Counsel duly instructed by Sri.K.Aravind Menon, on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.Sajju S, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent/State. An impleading petition has been filed by a third person. Sri.Manoranjan V.R, learned counsel for the impleading petitioner was also heard.

(3.) For a correct appreciation of the issue, it is necessary to look into the prosecution case in brief. In order to secure the acquittal of an Australian National, who was accused in Valiyathura Police Station Crime No.60/1990 (S.C.No.147/1990 of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram) alleging offence under Sec. 21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the 1st accused in the instant case the then Clerk of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, in charge of the property Sec. entered into a conspiracy with the 2 nd accused (petitioner herein), who was the defence counsel in the said case. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the 1 st accused, on 9/8/1990, dishonestly delivered to the 2 nd accused M.O.1 underwear, which was in the custody of the Court as T.No.241/1990. The 2nd accused dishonestly received it, after endorsing its receipt in the property register. By the time M.O.1 was resubmitted on 5/12/1990, the same was tampered with, ultimately resulting in the acquittal of the accused/Australian National. The 1st accused thereafter accepted back the altered underwear and forwarded it to the Sessions Court for trial, as if it was genuine. The prosecution would say that by such fabrication of evidence and deception of the Court, the accused committed the offences under Ss. 120(B), 420, 201, 193, 217, 409, 465 and 468, read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.