Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 2 (NationPress) – A significant chapter in Kerala’s political landscape is about to unfold as a trial court in the state capital prepares to announce its verdict concerning the infamous underwear evidence tampering case involving Antony Raju, a member of the Left Front and former Transport Minister. This decision marks the culmination of a legal journey that has spanned over 36 years.

The forthcoming ruling arrives almost a year after the Supreme Court overturned a previous Kerala High Court ruling that had dismissed criminal proceedings against Raju in November 2024.

The apex court reinstated the trial court's authority to acknowledge the police's charge sheet and mandated that the long-overdue trial be finalized within a year.

In adherence to this directive, Raju made an appearance in court on December 20, 2024, setting the stage for the imminent judgment.

This case traces back to 1990, when an Australian national named Andrew Salvatore Cervelli was detained at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly attempting to smuggle 61.5 grams of illicit substances hidden in his underwear.

At that time, Raju, a budding attorney at the outset of his political career, represented Cervelli.

Initially, the trial court convicted Cervelli, sentencing him to 10 years in prison.

However, a significant twist occurred when the Kerala High Court later acquitted Cervelli on appeal, citing that the underwear presented as evidence was too small for him, casting doubt on the prosecution's assertions.

Cervelli eventually returned to Australia. Years later, after receiving information from the Australian National Central Bureau, the investigating officer petitioned the High Court to investigate potential evidence tampering.

This prompted the initiation of a criminal case against Raju and a court clerk in 1994.

Following a lengthy investigation spanning 12 years, the Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a charge sheet in 2006, accusing Raju of criminal conspiracy, fraud, dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, and causing evidence to go missing.

Raju challenged these proceedings, asserting that the disputed underwear was under the trial court's jurisdiction at that time and that only the court had the authority to act under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC.

He argued that the police had no right to investigate or file a charge sheet in this matter, rendering the proceedings legally invalid.

While Raju's argument was accepted by the High Court, the Supreme Court disagreed, reinstating the prosecution and paving the way for the awaited verdict.

The outcome holds substantial legal and political implications for Raju, potentially concluding a case that has shadowed his public life for decades.