Delhi Court Convicts Sukesh Chandrashekhar For Impersonating Supreme Court Judge To Pressurize Judicial Officer To Grant Him Bail
A Delhi Court has convicted Sukesh Chandrashekhar for calling up a judicial officer who was presiding over a corruption case lodged against him, then impersonating a Supreme Court judge and pressurizing the trial judge to grant him bail further threatening the judicial officer with adverse professional ramifications if bail wasn't granted.
The allegation against Sukesh was that while in police custody in connection with a 2017 corruption case he obtained access to a constable's mobile phone in whose custody he was and thereafter used it to contact the official landline and mobile number of the judicial officer who was presiding over the corruption case.
At the outset, Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra, Tis Hazari Courts in her 121 page order said:
"There are cases which test the law. There are cases which test the evidence. And then there are cases which test the limits of human audacity and mendacity. The present case belongs, rather unfortunately, to the last category as it presents a particularly disturbing instance of an alleged attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by approaching a Judicial Officer through an extraordinary and wholly impermissible method..."
The court further noted that the accused allegedly tried to impersonate first as a Private Secretary of a then sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India and later as the Judge himself and then sought to persuade the Judicial Officer to grant bail to the accused at the earliest.
"The impersonator did not allegedly present himself as an ordinary citizen. He borrowed the highest judicial authority in the land. The purpose was apparently to create an aura of unquestionable command, where he was not merely asking a Judicial Officer to grant bail to the accused but was using the authority of a Judge of the Highest Court of the Land, to browbeat the Judicial Officer. He allegedly threatened her with adverse professional ramifications if the indulgence of bail was not extended to the accused," the court added.
The CJM said that the present case was qualitatively different from an ordinary case of cheating or impersonation. The allegation was not merely an allegation of an improper telephone call made to an individual Judicial Officer but represents an "alleged attempt to strike at the very foundation upon which the judicial process rests— independence of the Judiciary, the sanctity of judicial proceedings and the assurance that cases are decided only upon the basis of law and evidence and not upon private communications, pressure, deception or impersonation".
Deception of egregious character
"The audacity of the act is matched only by its utter contempt for the institution which the accused sought to manipulate. It is difficult to imagine a more grotesque inversion of the judicial process, which rests upon a simple proposition—that no individual, however powerful, wealthy, influential or resourceful, can privately command a Judge to decide a matter in a particular manner. Orders are passed in courtrooms, not dictated over clandestine telephone calls. Judicial discretion is exercised on the basis of the judicial record, not on the basis of the caller's designation.
This world has seen many a 'inglorious conmen' and 'Natwar Lals', who have deceived businessmen, companies, gullible investors or unsuspecting members of the public. But the kind of deception practised by Sukesh, the conman standing before this Court in this case with the intention of altering the course of judicial proceedings, lends the mischief an altogether different and extremely egregious character," the court underscored.
The CJM said that the case presented a certain comic absurdity, wherein the accused had spent years attempting to "blur the line" between "criminal cunning and sheer delusion" into an "art form". It also said that when the accused impersonated a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to manipulate an ongoing proceedings, he not only "crossed a line" but leapt over into the realm of fatal institutional overreach.
"Having spent a career spoofing caller IDs, impersonating Union Ministers, and convincing gullible millionaires that he held the keys to the corridors of power, accused Sukesh appears to have fallen victim to his own propaganda. He operated under the dangerous belief that if a lie is only grand enough and uttered with sufficient audacity, the rule of law will simply bow its head and step aside. He forgot that impersonating a bureaucrat or a political broker is a transactional crime born of greed but impersonating a Supreme Court Judge or his Secretary, is an act of institutional defiance," the court said.
The court said that the accused Sukesh erroneously believed that the robes of the highest constitutional court could be hijacked through a spoofed call, quick voice modulations and a polished voice.
"A conman's downfall is rarely subtle when built on such bloated arrogance. Sukesh's belief that he could manipulate judicial outcomes through sheer trickery reflects a profound misunderstanding of the constitutional machinery. He played his final, most absurd card—and in doing so, he ensured that the very system he sought to mock would respond not with panic, but with the unyielding, methodical weight of penal law," the court said.
It said that if conduct of "conmen such as Sukesh were to succeed" then every pending proceeding could potentially become vulnerable to an invisible parallel judicial system—one operating not in courtrooms, judgments or evidence but through telephones, instructions and impersonation.
No delay in complaint, judge's testimony credible
It said that the fact that the judicial officer after receiving the call, made certain inquiries from the Supreme Court to verify such communication and only thereafter lodged a formal complaint would not constitute delay.
It further found the judicial officer's testimony was cogent, consistent and materially corroborated by the contemporaneous record. It also overruled Sukesh's contention that the fact that the judicial officer called back the number despite realising that the caller was not in fact a sitting Supreme Court Judge does not discredit the testimony.
The court further found that the demeanour of the judicial officer during deposition was steady and composed and was not shaken on any material aspect.
The court further rejected the defence's contention that the judicial officer fabricated allegation of impersonation of a sitting Supreme Court judge, which was unsupported with any material nor was any motive attributed to the judge. Further there was no plausible reason for a Judicial Officer to invent such a complaint merely to frame an accused, given its consequences.
The court also rejected the contention that judicial officer can be contacted only if the officer's telephone number is openly available on the internet or otherwise in the public domain, observing that "telephone numbers of judicial officers are not necessarily secrets".
"A seasoned conman does not require a telephone directory to commit an offence. He requires information, ingenuity and intent. The very sophistication which enables such persons to impersonate constitutional or judicial authorities, create an aura of credibility and attempt to manipulate the decision-making process cannot simultaneously be disregarded when considering their ability to procure a telephone number," the court said.
Shoddy Investigation
The court however said that unfortunately, the investigation appears to have fallen substantially short of that standard as the chargesheet reveals an investigation of "disconcertingly modest ambition or aptitude".
It further observed that the the Delhi Police had investigated the matter with "utter indifference, investigative naivete and apathy". It observed that the IOs had recorded only a few statements that too after 8-10 months, collected only readily available documents, and examined the immediate telephone trail. It said that the police did not even record the statement of the complainant under Section 161 CrPC or examine the judicial officer's staff members on the day when the calls in question were received. They didn't even examine concerned official from the Supreme Court Registry, nor did they collect the Call Detail Record of the judicial officer's mobile phone or the official landline installed in the Chamber.
They also failed to seize the CCTV footage of the Crime Branch office, the court said, and failed to recover the mobile phone and SIM card used to make the calls. Nor did the police investigate the circumstances under which the phone of the official under whose supervision Sukesh was, went missing.
"The Investigating Officers have displayed an appalling apathy and tardiness in the investigation. The first IO has stated that he didn't take any investigative steps as there were oral directions not to take any investigative steps as the matter was to be transferred to Crime Branch. Even the IOs from Crime Branch, didn't examine the complainant and other witnesses, promptly...The explanation peddled by the IOs for the delay in recording statements and collecting relevant records, doesn't inspire much confidence. Rather, it shows a deliberate apathy to shield something, which would probably have put in dock one of their own..." the court added.
In view of the lapses in probe the court asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to consider issuing suitable directions, developing training modules, issuing internal advisories or investigative protocols for preservation of electronic evidence, tracing of mobile devices, examination of relevant witnesses with promptitude, securing of CCTV footage and proper documentation of the movement and custody of material objects. The court also directed the Commissioner to re- examine the role of the police constable in the offence.
The court convicted Sukesh of offences under IPC Sections 170(Personating a Public Servant), 189(Threat of Injury to a Public Servant) and 507(Criminal Intimidation by Anonymous Communication). On the aspect of sentence the court heard the arguments by both sides and listed the case for pronouncement of sentence on August 27.
Case title: STATE VS. Sukash Chandrasekhar @ Sukesh Chandrasekhar
CT. CASE No.5409/2016