Conviction for Impersonation
An extraordinary case of judicial impersonation concluded with the conviction of notorious conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar by a Delhi court. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts found Chandrasekhar guilty of pretending to be a sitting Supreme Court judge to influence a judicial officer in a bid to secure bail. The court’s verdict was based on Sections 170 (impersonating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 507 (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code.
Details of the Deception
The court described the incident as a dramatic attempt to manipulate the judicial system. In April 2017, while in police custody for a corruption case, Chandrasekhar allegedly accessed Constable Manjeet’s mobile phone to call Judge Poonam Chaudhary’s official and personal numbers. The caller initially posed as a personal secretary to a Supreme Court judge, later claiming to be the judge himself. He purportedly represented the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium, pressuring the judge to grant bail or face severe professional consequences.
Judicial Response and Investigation
Upon realizing the fraud, Judge Chaudhary confirmed with the Supreme Court that no such call had been made. The court found her testimony credible, supported by call records and evidence of Chandrasekhar’s access to the phone. The court emphasized that legitimate judicial decisions are made in courtrooms, not through clandestine calls.
Criticism of Police Investigation
Despite the clear evidence, the court criticized the Delhi Police’s investigation as lacking thoroughness. Essential evidence, such as the mobile phone and CCTV footage, was not secured, and key witnesses were not examined promptly. The court suggested a possible collusion, where Constable Manjeet might have facilitated Chandrasekhar’s access to the phone, though it did not find him guilty.
Further Proceedings Recommended
The court urged the Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police to scrutinize the constable’s involvement and consider fresh departmental or criminal proceedings. The investigation’s failure to follow evidence rigorously was highlighted as a significant flaw.
More Read
Final Judgment
Despite investigative shortcomings, the evidence against Chandrasekhar was deemed sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court stressed that while justice can be sought through proper legal channels, it cannot be manipulated through impersonation or intimidation.
Representing the state was Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Yadav, while Advocate Praveen Dabas appeared for Chandrasekhar.
