Supreme Court refuses to entertain Sukesh Chandrashekhar's plea against conviction

According to a Hindustan Times report, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a plea filed by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar seeking a stay on the order convicting him in a criminal case.

A Delhi court on August 20 last year convicted Chandrashekhar for posing as a Supreme Court judge with the intention to influence a special judge for bail in a 2017 corruption case. Subsequently, on August 29, the court sentenced him to 8 years in prison in the matter.

Chandrashekhar had challenged in the Delhi High Court the decision dismissing his plea seeking a stay on the trial court's order of conviction and sentence pending the disposal of his appeal. Disposing of his petition on October 16, the high court stated that no case was made out for staying the conviction order.

The high court observed that since the appeal against the conviction judgment was already pending, the objections against the findings recorded therein and the adverse remarks employed by the trial court were issues that should be examined by the appellate court. The high court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments before the appellate court.

Chandrashekhar's plea challenging the high court order came up for hearing before the apex court on Monday. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra refused to consider the plea.

While sentencing Chandrashekhar to 8 years in prison in the imposition case, the Delhi court termed the act "institutional sacrilege." The court awarded rigorous imprisonment of two years each for the offences of impersonating a public servant and intimidating a public servant, and 4 years for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.

The court directed that all the substantive sentences run consecutively, taking the total sentence to 8 years.

This case stems from a phone call made on April 28, 2017, during which Chandrashekhar was in police custody in a corruption case. According to the prosecution, he used a police constable's mobile phone to contact the official landline and mobile phone of Poonam Chaudhry, the then special judge handling cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The trial court noted that Chandrashekhar first introduced himself as the private secretary to a former Supreme Court judge and later as the judge himself. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that Chandrashekhar had deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court judge to interfere with the judiciary.