Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Tis Hazari Court had earlier found Chandrasekhar guilty under Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On August 29, the judge imposed 2 years' rigorous imprisonment each for the offences under Sections 170 and 189, and 4 years under Section 507, directing that the sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently.
"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.
Where distinct criminal wrongs are deliberately committed, each substantial wrong must be adequately reflected in the punishment.
Accordingly, all substantive sentences are directed to run consecutively," the Court ordered.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Tis Hazari Court had earlier found Chandrasekhar guilty under Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On August 29, the judge imposed 2 years' rigorous imprisonment each for the offences under Sections 170 and 189, and 4 years under Section 507, directing that the sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently.
"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. Where distinct criminal wrongs are deliberately committed, each substantial wrong must be adequately reflected in the punishment. The deliberate, calculated and deceptive manner in which the offences were committed by the convict in this case warrants 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 ordered.
It also rejected Chandrasekhar's plea for concurrent sentencing and leniency, noting that the convict showed no remorse and instead sought to cast aspersions on the complainant's and the trial court's credibility.
