Delhi HC imposes costs of Rs 35,000 on man impersonating as PMO official to get VIP darshan

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 35,000 and dismissed the petition of a man who posed as a PMO official to get VIP darshan at temples, government accommodation and a vehicle to move around.
The accused had challenged the charges of criminal conspiracy, impersonation and cheating framed against him by a CBI court in New Delhi.
Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the petition of Vivek Keshawn against the charges framed under sections 120B, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
"Accordingly, I find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs 35,000 to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within two weeks," Justice Chawla ordered on February 20, 2024.
The High Court said that The costs so deposited shall be utilised by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for providing counselling/psychological support to the POCSO
Victims require such assistance.
It is alleged by the CBI that the petitioner Vivek Keshawn and one Pramod Kumar Singh posed as officials of PMO and made calls to officials at Pondicherry and Andhra Pradesh's Tirumala Tirupati Devsthanam Board.
While making the calls Pramod Kumar Singh posed as Principal Secretary at PMO and asked for facilities like government accommodation, vehicles and VIP Darshan at Temple.
It is further alleged that Pramod Singh also asked for the same facilities for the petitioner Vivek Keshavan.
The allegations were denied by petitioner Keshavan. He said that his name and phone number were missed by Singh and he never called any such officials.
On the other hand, the CBI argued that there is clear evidence that officials called him back on his number for confirmation of his visit and the facilities sought but never denied. Accordingly, he was provided a government vehicle and accommodation at the Government Hotel at Pondicherry.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Chawla dismissed the petition and said, "I find no infirmity in the above reasoning of the learned Special Judge."
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a result of the alleged acts the petitioner, he did not obtain any property or benefits, also cannot be accepted at this
stage. There is an allegation in the charge sheet, accompanied with evidence, that he had availed of the official vehicle during his stay at Pondicherry, the court said in the judgement.