IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Locus Standi to prefer SLP – Appeal by a private individual can be entertained, both sparingly and after due vigilance.
(2) Contempt of lawful authority of Public Servants – Bar of prosecution – Offence should be such which has direct bearing on discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has direct correlation with proceedings in a Court of justice, affecting administration of justice.

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KAROL J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeals arise from the common final judgment and order dated 10th March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRL. M.C. No. 5261 of 2022, whereby the order taking cognizance in Crime No. 215/1994 and all further proceedings pursuant to the same (C.C. No. 811 of 2014) on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad, were quashed and the Registry of the High Court was directed to take appropriate action against Antony Raju in accordance with the procedure set out under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.¹ [hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”]

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The genesis of this case dates back to the year 1990. On 4th April, 1990, an FIR came to be registered bearing Crime No. 60 of 1990, under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, wherein an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore, was travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Mumbai. While undergoing frisking at the airport, he was found to be in possession of 2 packets containing 55 grams and 6.6 grams of charas, which were kept concealed in the pocket of his underwear. On registration of the FIR, the person, along with the seized articles and personal belongings, were kept in the custody of the Valiyathura Police Station.

4. These seized articles were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate– II, Thiruvananthapuram. Accused No. 1 was the Clerk, in the custody of whom, by virtue of a judicial order, the articles were entrusted. Thereafter, on 17.07.1990, an application was made on behalf of Andrew Salvatore, seeking the release of his personal belongings, which came to be permitted.

5. Accordingly, the articles were released to accused No. 2/appellant in SLP(Crl.)No. 7896 of 2023, who was the junior lawyer of the counsel appearing for Andrew Salvatore. Pertinently, one of the items of the case property, i.e., the underwear of Andrew Salvatore, was also released along with the personal articles directed to be released by the Court. However, later, the underwear was returned by Accused No. 2 to Accused No. 1, which was forwarded to the Sessions Court and during trial, it was marked as Exhibit Mo2, in case Crime No. 60 of 1990.

6. The Sessions Court convicted Andrew Salvatore and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh under Section 20(b)(11) of the NDPS Act, 1985. An appeal was preferred as Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1991 before the High Court of Kerala. During the course of hearing, a practical test was conducted, and it was found that the said underwear (Ex. Mo2) was not the size of the convicted person. Therefore, vide judgment and order dated 5th February, 1991, the High Court while acquitting Andrew Salvatore, observed that “there is a strong possibility of Mo2 being planted in an attempt to help the appellant to wriggle out of the situation. I hope that this matter will be duly enquired into and dealt with properly by the concerned authorities… A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretary for appropriate action.”

7. Subsequent to the judgment dated 5th February, 1991, the Vigilance Officer of the High Court of Kerala conducted an investigation and a report in this regard was submitted highlighting the necessity of a detailed investigation into the incident. This resulted in an Office Memorandum dated 27th September, 1994 being issued by the High Court requesting the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to direct the Sheristadar to lodge a First Information Report before the police.

8. Thereafter on 5th October, 1994, an FIR bearing No. 215/94 came to be registered stating that – “As per the Order No. 8384/94 dated 27.09.1994 issued by the Kerela High Court, a letter has been sent to the Trivandrum District Judge. As per the direction of the District Court, Trivandrum, the following charges have been imposed in SC No. 147/90 for replacing Mo2 (Jetty), hence the accused cheated the Cour