New Delhi, Aug 31 Delhi Police on Monday raised an objection in the Delhi High Court over the maintainability of a plea by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar against a trial court decision convicting him for impersonating a Supreme Court judge to influence a special judge for bail in a 2017 corruption case.
The police contended that Chandrasekhar’s plea, seeking deletion of certain “derogatory” remarks made by the trial court on his character in its judgment, was not maintainable since he filed it based on the conviction verdict and instead he should file an appeal raising the issue.
The counsel for Delhi Police said the trial court has now passed the sentencing order and Chandrasekhar should file an appeal challenging his conviction and punishment and should raise all the issues there.
Justice Madhu Jain said the court would hear arguments on the maintainability of the petition on November 3.
During the hearing, Chandrasekhar’s lawyer submitted that he was seeking the setting aside of the “derogatory” remarks made in the judgment because there are other cases pending against him and such remarks would prejudice his rights.
On August 20, the trial court held Chandrasekhar guilty of the offences under IPC sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication), and described his crime as a “direct affront” to the independence and sanctity of the judicial process.
The trial court awarded Chandrasekhar eight years' rigorous imprisonment in the case.
While sentencing him, the trial court said, “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.”
In his plea in the high court, Chandrasekhar has sought deletion of the “derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary observations” on his character in the trial court judgment.
Chandrasekhar has said in his plea that the trial court repeatedly characterised him in terms that are “wholly unnecessary for adjudication”.
The trial court's judgment is contrary to the fundamental requirement that a case must be adjudicated upon evidence and not on an assumed character of the accused, Chandrasekhar said in his plea.
The trial court approached the case with a “predetermined and adverse mindset”, and denied him the opportunity to complete defence evidence, the plea said.
The case stemmed from a phone call made on April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with the corruption case.
According to the prosecution, he obtained access to the mobile phone of police constable Manjeet and used it to contact the official landline and mobile phone of Poonam Chaudhary, then a special judge dealing with Prevention of Corruption Act cases.
While convicting him, the trial court said Chandrasekhar had first impersonated the private secretary of a then Supreme Court judge and later, the judge himself.
It held that the prosecution had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Chandrasekhar had deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court judge to interfere with the administration of justice.
“A courtroom may be entered through its doors, but justice cannot be entered through the backdoor of impersonation, intimidation or manufactured authority. The accused attempted precisely such a backdoor entry into the judicial process. The evidence has closed that door,” the trial court said.
The trial judge said the case was qualitatively different from an ordinary cheating or impersonation matter as the alleged conduct sought to undermine judicial independence by using the authority of the country's highest court to influence another judicial officer.
