Supreme Court Restores Criminal Proceedings Quashed by Kerala High Court in NDPS Case: “Locus Standi of Third Party to Challenge Affirmed Amid Serious Public Interest in Allegations of Judicial Interference and Evidence Tampering

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 215/1994 and related cases involving evidence tampering in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) case. It restored the cognizance order and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within one year, ensuring a fair trial for the accused and resolution of the long-pending matter.

Facts:

1. Origin of the Case:
   • In 1990, Australian national Andrew Salvatore was apprehended at Thiruvananthapuram Airport for possessing two packets of charas (weighing 55 grams and 6.6 grams).
   • The seized items, including Salvatore’s underwear (Mo2), were placed in judicial custody as evidence.
2. Trial and Allegations of Tampering:
   • During Salvatore’s trial, the Sessions Court marked the underwear (Mo2) as evidence. However, upon appeal in 1991, the Kerala High Court acquitted Salvatore, observing that Mo2 did not match his size, suggesting potential tampering.
3. Investigations into Tampering:
   • Following the High Court’s 1991 directive, a vigilance investigation revealed discrepancies, leading to an FIR in 1994. It alleged that court personnel and Advocate Antony Raju conspired to tamper with evidence, replacing Mo2 to mislead the trial.
4. Proceedings Quashed:
   • Despite these findings, in 2023, the Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), citing procedural bars.

Issues Before the Supreme Court:

1. Locus Standi: Could a third party, the appellant, challenge the High Court’s order in criminal proceedings?
2. Application of Section 195(1)(b): Was the High Court correct in holding that proceedings were barred under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.?
3. Authority for De Novo Steps: Could the High Court order fresh steps in proceedings that had been quashed?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. On Locus Standi:
   • The appellant, a socially active individual, argued that the quashing undermined public interest by dismissing serious allegations of judicial interference and evidence tampering.
2. On Procedural Bar Under Section 195(1)(b):
   • The bar under Section 195(1)(b) should not apply to proceedings initiated through a judicial directive, as in this case.
3. On the High Court’s Actions:
   • The High Court’s decision ignored the sanctity of judicial proceedings, allowing an alleged criminal conspiracy to escape scrutiny.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Locus Standi:
   • The respondents contended that the appellant had no right to intervene in criminal proceedings, which are between the State and the accused.
2. On Procedural Bar:
   • The bar under Section 195(1)(b) explicitly prohibits taking cognizance of offences related to judicial proceedings without the court’s complaint.
3. On De Novo Steps:
   • Fresh steps could not be ordered after quashing the proceedings.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court extensively examined Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., which limits cognizance of offences related to judicial proceedings unless initiated by the court or an authorized officer. The section aims to:

• Prevent frivolous litigation.
• Protect judicial integrity by ensuring courts supervise offences affecting their processes.

The Court observed:

1. Mandatory Nature of Section 195: Compliance with Section 195 is mandatory in offences involving evidence or documents in judicial custody.
2. Exceptions: High Courts, as superior courts, have supervisory powers to initiate or direct complaints, ensuring justice is served.
3. Custodia Legis Requirement: For Section 195 to apply, the alleged offence must occur when the document or evidence is under judicial custody.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to key judgments, including:

1. Sivamani Case (2017): Highlighted that judicial directions to investigate supersede procedural bars under Section 195.
2. Perumal Case (2014): Affirmed High Courts’ authority to act in the interests of justice, even when procedural bars are raised.
3. Nasib Singh Case (2022): Allowed retrials in exceptional circumstances, such as serious procedural violations or miscarriage of justice.

These precedents emphasized that procedural safeguards under Section 195 must not obstruct justice or shield criminal acts.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Locus Standi:
   • The Court affirmed the appellant’s right to intervene, noting the serious public interest in allegations of judicial interference and evidence tampering.
   • Allegations of tampering with evidence strike at the foundation of judicial integrity, warranting scrutiny irrespective of the complainant’s identity.
2. Procedural Bar Under Section 195(1)(b):
   • The High Court misapplied the procedural bar, as the proceedings were initiated through judicial directives.
   • Judicial processes, including evidence tampering, directly affect public trust in the judiciary and cannot be dismissed on technical grounds.
3. De Novo Steps:
   • The Court supported fresh proceedings in light of grave allegations involving judicial custody. The High Court’s quashing of the proceedings was found erroneous, given the larger implications for justice.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court restored the quashed proceedings and directed their conclusion within one year. It reiterated the importance of addressing allegations of judicial interference, emphasizing that procedural safeguards must not obstruct justice.

Implications:

1. Judicial Accountability: The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to transparency and integrity, ensuring accountability in cases involving its own processes.
2. Public Trust: By prioritizing justice over procedural technicalities, the judgment strengthens public confidence in the judiciary.
3. Guidance on Section 195: The decision clarifies the scope and limitations of Section 195, ensuring it is not misused to shield wrongdoing.

Also Read – Supreme Court: State Cannot Invoke Doctrine of Adverse Possession to Claim Ownership of Private Property Against Citizens; Upholds Plaintiffs’ Ownership Based on Revenue Records