NEW DELHI, Aug. 27 -- A Delhi court has convicted alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekar for threatening a judge in 2017 to grant him bail in a corruption case by posing as a Supreme Court judge and his personal secretary, observing that justice could not be entered through the backdoor of "impersonation" and "manufactured authority". The judgment, passed by Chief judicial magistrate Harshita Mishra, on August 20, underlined, "A courtroom may be entered through its doors, but justice cannot be entered through the backdoor of impersonation, intimidation or manufactured authority. The accused (Sukesh) attempted precisely such a backdoor entry into the judicial process. The evidence has closed that door". The court will decide the quantum of sentence on August 27. The case dates back to April 24, 2017, when then special judge Poonam Choudhary, who was posted at the Tis Hazari courts to try Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act cases, received a call at her chamber's landline. As per the First Information Report (FIR), the caller identified himself as the PA to Supreme Court judge "KJ" and said that the judge wanted to talk to her. Minutes later, another person came up on the call and introduced himself as justice "KJ". Police said the caller told the judge that he was calling on behalf of the Union home ministry and the Supreme Court collegium and said that there was a matter coming up before her court regarding the bail plea of Sukesh. The caller subsequently told her to grant bail to him as he has allegedly gone through the FIR and that "it lacked any substance". According to the FIR, the caller further threatened her of professional consequences if she failed to abide by the directions. The judge then called up the office of the justice KJ and enquired whether the judge had called her for the purpose, however his office denied the same. The judge went on to file a complaint with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Tis Hazari courts. After the initial probe, a case was lodged by the Subzi Mandi Police Station under Indian Penal Code sections 170 (Personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to public servant), 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication) and 34 (common intention) on April 29, 2017. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch, which filed the charge sheet on April 20, 2018 and the trial started in February 2019. The prosecution, represented by additional public prosecutor Amit Yadav, argued that Sukesh, while in custody at the Delhi Police Crime Branch's office, "clandestinely" used the phone of the Constable Manjeet, to make the call. Sukesh, represented by advocate Parveen Dabas, argued that the prosecution's case against the accused was built entirely on conjecture and was riddled with material contradictions and fatal investigative gaps. He also highlighted that there was no call or voice recording of the purported conversation. The court also delved into the "investigative lapses" of the Delhi Police, pulling up the force for failing to recover the phone of the constable through which Sukesh made the alleged calls....