Now Reading: Delhi court convicts Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating Supreme Court judge
-
01
Delhi court convicts Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating Supreme Court judge
Delhi court convicts Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating Supreme Court judge
A Delhi court has convicted conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge to pressure a judicial officer into granting him bail in 2017. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of…
A Delhi court has convicted conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge to pressure a judicial officer into granting him bail in 2017. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts found him guilty under IPC Sections 170, 189 and 507. The court called it an 'absurd theatrical production' and an act of institutional defiance.
According to the prosecution, Chandrasekhar used a constable's phone to call special judge Poonam Chaudhary, with one caller posing as a Supreme Court judge's secretary and another claiming to be the judge. The caller demanded immediate bail and threatened professional repercussions. The judge verified with the Supreme Court and found no such call was made. The court noted that the constable's role may have been more than that of a victim, and directed the police commissioner to re-examine his conduct.
Indian Opinion Analysis
This case highlights a rare instance where a high-profile inmate attempted to directly coerce a lower court judge by invoking the Supreme Court's authority. The conviction under Section 170 carries a maximum two-year sentence, while Sections 189 and 507 can extend to seven years and two years respectively. Chandrasekhar already faces multiple cases in Delhi and other jurisdictions, with bail denied in several. The court's directive to probe the constable's role suggests the investigation may uncover whether the impersonation was aided from within police custody. Sentencing is expected shortly.
The Delhi Police investigation was criticised as 'superficial' and 'shoddy', failing to recover the phone or secure CCTV footage. The court's order for a departmental probe into the constable could lead to further proceedings. The case underscores the limits of impersonation as a tactic when confronted with institutional verification procedures.
Source: barandbench.com
This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.
