New Delhi, Aug. 26 -- A Delhi court has convicted conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and attempting to influence a judicial officer into granting him bail. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts found Chandrasekhar guilty under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code for impersonating a public servant, threatening a public servant and criminal intimidation through anonymous communication.
The case relates to an incident in April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case being heard by special judge Poonam Chaudhary. According to the prosecution, he gained access to the mobile phone of police constable Manjeet and used it to call the judge's official landline and personal mobile number. The caller initially claimed to be the personal secretary of a sitting Supreme Court judge. Another person subsequently spoke to the judicial officer, claiming to be the judge himself and saying that he was calling on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium. The caller allegedly instructed the judge to grant Chandrasekhar bail or interim bail immediately and warned her of serious professional consequences if she did not comply.
Judge verified call with Supreme Court
Following the calls, the judicial officer contacted the Supreme Court and spoke with the actual private secretary of the judge whose identity had allegedly been used. She was informed that no such call had been made and that the person identified as the judge's secretary was not associated with the concerned office.
The trial court found the judge's testimony reliable and said it was supported by call detail records and evidence indicating that Chandrasekhar had access to the police constable's phone. The court emphasised that judicial decisions must be based on court records and legal proceedings, rather than private telephone communications or claims of authority.
Court criticises police investigation
While holding Chandrasekhar guilty, the court strongly criticised the Delhi Police investigation, describing it as superficial and inadequate.
The court noted that investigators failed to recover the mobile phone, obtain relevant CCTV footage from the Crime Branch premises, collect important call records and promptly examine key witnesses. It also questioned how Chandrasekhar was able to access a police officer's phone while in custody. The court further said the circumstances raised questions about whether Constable Manjeet may have facilitated Chandrasekhar's access to the phone rather than merely being a victim of its misuse. However, it clarified that this observation did not amount to a finding of guilt against the constable.
Police ordered to re-examine constable's role
The court directed the Commissioner of Police or the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a fresh examination of the constable's role and determine whether departmental or criminal proceedings were warranted. Despite the shortcomings in the investigation, the court concluded that the evidence available was sufficient to establish Chandrasekhar's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case concerns Chandrasekhar's alleged attempt to manipulate an ongoing judicial proceeding by falsely assuming the identity and authority of a Supreme Court judge.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.