New Delhi: A Delhi court has convicted jailed conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and allegedly attempting to influence a judicial officer to grant him bail in a corruption case.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Tis Hazari Courts convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to impersonating a public servant, threatening a public servant and criminal intimidation through anonymous communication.
Alleged impersonation to secure bail
According to the prosecution case, Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a 2017 corruption case when he allegedly obtained access to the mobile phone of a police constable who was supervising him.
He allegedly used the phone to contact Poonam Chaudhary, then Special Judge handling the corruption case against him. The caller initially allegedly posed as the private secretary of a sitting Supreme Court judge and later as the judge himself, seeking that bail be granted to Chandrasekhar.
The prosecution further alleged that the judicial officer was threatened with adverse professional consequences if the requested relief was not granted.
Court strongly criticised the conduct
In its 121-page judgment, the court described the case as an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice through impersonation and pressure.
The court said that impersonating a Supreme Court judge to influence a pending judicial proceeding was fundamentally different from an ordinary case of cheating or impersonation. It observed that such conduct could undermine judicial independence and the principle that cases must be decided on the basis of law and evidence rather than private pressure or deception.
The court also said that by impersonating a Supreme Court judge, Chandrasekhar had not merely “crossed the line” but had gone into what it described as “fatal institutional overreach.”
Judicial officer’s testimony accepted
The court rejected the defence argument that the judicial officer’s complaint was fabricated or that there had been an unexplained delay in reporting the incident.
It found her testimony consistent and materially supported by contemporaneous records. The court noted that she had first made inquiries with the Supreme Court to verify whether such a communication had actually been made before lodging a formal complaint.
Court flags major investigation lapses
While convicting Chandrasekhar, the court also sharply criticised the Delhi Police investigation.
It noted that investigators failed to promptly record statements of important witnesses, did not examine relevant Supreme Court Registry officials, did not collect certain call-detail records and failed to secure CCTV footage and the mobile phone and SIM allegedly used to make the calls.
The court described the investigation as seriously deficient and directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to consider appropriate measures, including better protocols for preserving electronic evidence and examining witnesses promptly. It also directed the Commissioner to re-examine the role of the police constable whose phone was allegedly accessed.
Sentence to be pronounced on August 27
The court has heard arguments on the question of punishment but has listed the matter for August 27 for pronouncement of sentence. Therefore, the sentence has not yet been announced.
Meanwhile, Chandrasekhar has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the conviction, seeking that the judgment be set aside and objecting to certain observations made against him.
