2 days ago
Sukesh Chandrasekhar Gets Eight Years for Impersonating Supreme Court Judge
A Delhi court sentenced Sukesh Chandrasekhar to eight years in prison.
The court said he pretended to be a judge of India’s highest court.
It found that he used this false identity to try to influence a bail case.
The calls were made in 2017 while he was in police custody in another case.
The court said he first pretended to be the judge’s private secretary and then the judge.
The judge said this could damage people’s trust in courts.
The court did not reduce the punishment just because the plan did not succeed.
Chandrasekhar disagrees with the decision and has appealed to the Delhi High Court.
A Delhi court sentenced Sukesh Chandrasekhar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment for impersonating a Supreme Court judge.
The sentence comprises consecutive terms of two years under IPC Section 170, two years under Section 189, and four years under Section 507.
The case arose from multiple calls on April 28, 2017, allegedly made while Chandrasekhar was in police custody.
The court said he first posed as a judge’s private secretary and later as the judge to influence a bail proceeding.
Chandrasekhar has moved the Delhi High Court, challenging his conviction and seeking removal of character-related observations.
- Who
- Sukesh Chandrasekhar was sentenced by Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra; the calls involved judicial officer Poonam Chaudhary, also spelled Poonam Choudhary in some reports.
- What
- A Delhi court imposed an eight-year rigorous-imprisonment sentence for impersonation, threatening a public servant and criminal intimidation; Chandrasekhar has challenged the ruling.
- Where
- The case was heard at Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court, and the challenge was filed in the Delhi High Court.
- When
- The calls were allegedly made on April 28, 2017. The court convicted Chandrasekhar on August 20 and issued the sentencing order on August 20 or August 29, depending on the report.
- Why
- The prosecution and trial court said Chandrasekhar impersonated a Supreme Court judge to influence a bail-related proceeding and interfere with the administration of justice.
Trial Court and Prosecution
Chandrasekhar’s Appeal
Purpose and seriousness
Trial Court and Prosecution
The prosecution and court said Chandrasekhar deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court judge to influence a bail proceeding and interfere with judicial administration.
Chandrasekhar’s Appeal
Chandrasekhar argues that the case should have been decided on evidence rather than on assumptions or characterisations about him.
Unsuccessful attempt
Trial Court and Prosecution
The court rejected the argument that failing to deceive the judicial officer or obtain bail reduced the seriousness of the offences.
Chandrasekhar’s Appeal
His appeal challenges the conviction and disputes the trial court’s approach to the evidence and proceedings.
Judgment and trial process
Trial Court and Prosecution
The court said consecutive sentences were necessary because the offences involved distinct legal wrongs and collectively threatened confidence in the justice system.
Chandrasekhar’s Appeal
Chandrasekhar seeks deletion of observations he calls derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary, and alleges that he was denied the opportunity to complete his defence evidence.
Key facts
- Total sentence
- Eight years of rigorous imprisonment, with all three substantive terms running consecutively.
- IPC Section 170
- Two years of rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 5,000 fine for impersonating a public servant.
- IPC Section 189
- Two years of rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 5,000 fine for threatening injury to a public servant; one report refers instead to Section 187.
- IPC Section 507
- Four years of rigorous imprisonment for criminal intimidation through anonymous communication.
- Alleged conduct
- Multiple calls on April 28, 2017, allegedly made while Chandrasekhar was in police custody.
- Alleged target
- Judicial officer Poonam Chaudhary or Poonam Choudhary, who was handling corruption-related cases.
- Custody credit
- The court granted credit for time already spent in custody.
Quotes
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra
Delhi chief judicial magistrate who sentenced Chandrasekhar at Tis Hazari courts
“A courtroom may be entered through its doors, but justice cannot be entered through the back door of impersonation, intimidation or manufactured authority. The accused attempted precisely such a backdoor entry into the judicial process. The evidence has closed that door.”
livemint.com
“The punishment must reflect that the criminal justice system distinguishes between an isolated unlawful act and a deliberate series of acts aimed at manipulating, intimidating or interfering with the legitimate functioning of public institutions.”
rediff.com
deccanchronicle.com
freepressjournal.in
Sources
8-Year Jail For Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar For Posing As Top Court Judge
Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar gets 8-year jail for posing as SC judge; moves Delhi HC
Sukesh Chandrasekhar gets 8-year jail term for impersonating SC judge
Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar Gets 8 Years' Jail For Impersonating SC Judge
Delhi Court Hands 8-Year Rigorous Imprisonment To Sukesh Chandrashekhar In Judge Impersonation Case
Related news
Sukesh Chandrasekhar Convicted for Posing as Supreme Court Judge
Delhi Court Convicts Sukesh Chandrasekhar Over Impersonation Bid
Delhi High Court Weighs Sukesh Chandrasekhar's Plea Over Remarks
Chhattisgarh High Court Cuts Fake Police Extortionist’s Jail Term
Scammer Poses as Delhi Judge to Target Lawyers
Bihar Police Arrest Man for Impersonating Union Minister's Private Secretary
Supreme Court Questions IPS Deputation for CAPF Leadership Positions
Supreme Court Quashes 20-Year Conviction, Reaffirms Juvenile Legal Protections
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
