Kochi, March 17: The Kerala High Court refused to suspend the recent conviction of former Kerala Minister Antony Raju in the underwear evidence tampering case.
Single-judge Justice C Jayachandran dismissed Raju's plea against the sessions court's refusal to suspend his conviction. The High Court opined that there were no serious flaws in the judgment convicting Raju so as to warrant suspension of conviction.
Therefore, in the absence of a serious infirmity or a fundamental flaw, probabilising preponderently a possible interference with the judgment, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused, the judgment of conviction is not liable to be stayed/suspended," the Court said.
With this verdict Raju will be ineligible to contest in the upcoming Assembly Elections unless the Supreme Court overturns this order.
Raju is the leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party, which is part of the ruling Left Democratic Front coalition in Kerala.
Raju was convicted on January 3 by the Nedumangadu Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I in the evidence tampering case which has a history spanning over three decades. His appeal against the conviction is pending before a sessions court.
While the sessions court suspended his jail sentence, it declined to suspend his conviction which effectively keeps Raju disqualified from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly.
Raju's plea against the sessions court's decision was rejected by the High Court today.
The High Court said that it has to take a cautious approach when considering such cases where the consequence of conviction is to be barred from being an elected representative of the people.
When the law is settled, that suspension/stay of conviction, can only be in exceptional circumstances. I am of the opinion that, when it comes to a suspension/stay of conviction, in the context of the interdiction under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, Courts of law should be slow and doubly cautious in ensuring that such suspension/stay is granted only in befitting cases, since it virtually overturns a statutory mandate," the Court said.
Citing a host of precedents, the Court observed that suspension of conviction ought to be granted only when the judgment of conviction which is under challenge marred by palpable perversity.
I am of the definite opinion that a 'very exceptional circumstance' should necessarily be borne out from the judgment impugned itself, that is to say, a palpable perversity or patent unreasonableness writ large on the face of the impugned judgment," the Court said.
|