Court Verdict in Thondimuthal Case Alters LDF’s Thiruvananthapuram Strategy

Thiruvananthapuram: As the LDF was formulating strategies to recover from setbacks in the local body elections and to neutralise the political fallout of the Sabarimala gold smuggling case, the verdict in the thondimuthal (misappropriation of seized property) case has come as an unexpected blow.

While the case is not political in origin, it involves the legal scrutiny and punishment of an offence committed by Antony Raju in his capacity as a lawyer. However, the timing of the verdict—on the eve of the Assembly elections—has unmistakable political ramifications.

The political significance of the judgment lies in the fact that Antony Raju is not only the founder and leader of the Democratic Kerala Congress, an LDF constituent, but also a leader from whom the front had hoped to secure a victory in the Thiruvananthapuram constituency by consolidating community votes. His disqualification at this crucial juncture complicates the LDF’s electoral calculations.

Antony Raju became a minister during the first phase of the LDF government after the Kerala Congress (B) agreed to defer its turn for a ministerial berth. Though the thondimuthal case had been under judicial consideration since then, neither Raju nor the LDF had anticipated it turning into a serious threat. The conviction comes 13 years after the alleged offence. That Raju had already completed his ministerial tenure is seen as having limited the immediate impact on the government and the ruling front.

Thiruvananthapuram is a politically sensitive constituency where the Latin Catholic community wields considerable influence and coastal voters play a decisive role. Just as Antony Raju was preparing to contest what is effectively his party’s sole seat, he now faces the consequences of a conviction and consequent disqualification. In his absence, the CPM is likely to attempt a direct takeover of the constituency. Identifying a new candidate who can navigate the complex community equations will pose a significant challenge for the party.

In the case, the first accused, Jose, was sentenced to a cumulative term amounting to seven and a half years’ imprisonment along with a fine of ₹15,000, while Antony Raju was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment and fined ₹10,000. However, as the court ruled that the sentences under various sections would run concurrently, both will have to serve a maximum of three years in prison.

Both accused were sentenced to three years each for destruction of evidence and for fabricating evidence, two years for producing forged evidence, and six months for criminal conspiracy. An additional one-year sentence was imposed on the first accused for abuse of power in his capacity as a government official.

The court pronounced the accused guilty soon after proceedings began in the morning. Given that Section 409 of the IPC—relating to criminal breach of trust by a person in authority—allows for punishment up to life imprisonment, the Public Prosecutor, A. Manmohan, argued that the matter should be transferred to a district court, as a Judicial First Class Magistrate does not have the authority to impose such a sentence. However, the magistrate noted that there were no supporting documents on record to consider such a transfer.

Following the verdict, Congress workers staged protests as Antony Raju exited the court premises, leading to clashes. Police resorted to a lathi charge to disperse the demonstrators.