Conman Sukesh sentenced to 8 yrs in jail by Delhi court for impersonating SC judge

A Delhi court has sentenced alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekar to eight years in prison for allegedly impersonating a Supreme Court judge to influence his case hearing, observing that the convict showed no remorse for his “mendacious actions” and continues to tread on the “road to perdition”.

The sentence was handed out to Chandrasekar by chief judicial magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari courts on August 29 and released on Monday.

The court said that Chandrasekar was being handed out a rigorous imprisonment of four years for the offence of Indian Penal Code Section 507 (Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication), two years for Section 170 (Personating a public servant) and two years for Section 189 (Threat of injury to public servant).

The court said that the sentences cannot be permitted to merge into one another or to operate merely concurrently.

“The nature of the offences, the distinct mischief addressed by each provision, the manner in which the offences were committed and, most importantly, their cumulative impact upon the administration and justice makes this a fit and compelling case for consecutive sentences,” the court stated.

Also Read: Court frames charges against Jacqueline, Sukesh in PMLA case

The court added that the sentence must reflect that the “criminal justice system distinguishes between an isolated unlawful act and a deliberate sequence of acts designed to manipulate, intimidate or interfere with the lawful functioning of public institutions”.

The judge said, “Where distinct criminal wrongs are deliberately committed, each substantial wrong must be adequately reflected in the punishment”.

The court emphasised that the “deliberate, calculated and deceptive manner” in which the offences were committed by the convict in this case warranted a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the attack upon the rule of law and the administration of justice. “Accordingly, all substantive sentences are directed to run consecutively,” the court said.

The counsel for Chandrasekar told the court that the convict had already undergone the period of sentence as imposed in this case, as he was not released on bail and hence, shall be entitled to the benefit of the period already undergone in custody. The counsel said that Chandrasekar had already been granted bail in the matter in May 2018 but had not furnished a bail bond.

The court also sought clarification from the Jail Superintendent, if at any point, bail or personal bonds were furnished by the convict before the jail superintendent and fixed the next date of hearing for September 2 for clarification.

A Delhi court had on August 20 convicted alleged conman Sukesh 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 judgement had 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 case dates 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.

When she picked up the call, the first information report (FIR) said, 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 it.

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 IPC sections 170 (Personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to public servant), 507 (criminal intimidation by 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 court in the 24-page sentence order said that it is of the considered opinion that the present case called for a “substantial custodial sentence”.

“The conduct of the convict is aggravated by the deliberate assumption of a false judicial identity, the calculated nature of the deception, the object of influencing a judicial officer, the attempt to secure bail in another criminal case through such deception, and the potential of the act to erode public confidence in the administration of justice,” the order underlined.

The court said that Chandrasekar had also not shown any genuine remorse during the course of trial.

“Rather he as well as his counsel sought to put the Judicial Officer (complainant) in the dock by questioning her conduct in calling back on the number from which she had received the calls on April 28, 2017,” the court added.

Noting that mitigating circumstances in favour of Chandrasekar were “conspicuously absent”, the court said that convict and his counsel had “insinuated and even openly stated that the Judicial Officer had connived with the Delhi Police to falsely implicate the convict”.

Also Read:‘She was in connivance with Sukesh’: Why court called Jacqueline Fernandez accused, not victim in ₹200 cr extortion case

The court said, “This court must resolutely convey to the convict as well as men of his ilk that the cost of attacking the institution of justice is neither uncertain nor inconsequential”.

It said that the court must convey a message that “no criminal ingenuity, however insidious or audacious; no fabricated identity, however impressive or grand; and no attempt at manufactured influence, can be permitted to bend the course of justice”.

The court in its judgement had directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to re-examine the role of Constable Manjeet, using whose phone Sukesh allegedly made the call to the judge.

The court directed police to look into aspects surrounding the constable’s alleged absence from the Crime Branch officer, the footage which showed him leaving, location coordinates of the constable and the privacy lock details of the mobile phone.

The court has now set October 1 as the date for compliance of its directions with regards to the constable.