Last year, the CBI booked Sanjeev Kumar on the charge of impersonation. Kumar had allegedly claimed he was an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
He moved a sessions court against the charge, claiming since there was no one named Sanjeev Kumar posted as an OSD in the CVC, he had not impersonated anyone. On Wednesday, the court quashed the charge of impersonation against him.
Impersonation of a public officer is an offence under Section 170 of the IPCDe, which penalises anyone pretending to “hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office”.
- Ae Dil Hai Mushkil Audience Reaction: Ranbir, Aishwarya, Anushka Starrer Gets A Thumbs Up
- Bigg Boss 10, October 27 Review: Navin, Lokesh Fights During The Immunity Task
- Shivaay Audience Reaction: Ajay Devgn Impresses Viewers
- Pakistan High Commission Staffer Caught With Defence Documents: What It Means For India & Pakistan
- The Royal Opera House Reopens After Decades Of Neglect: Here’s A Quick Tour
- Tata Sons Rubbishes Cyrus Mistry’s Allegations: Here’s What Happened
- Pakistan High Commissioner denies allegations leveled on his staffer for espionage activities
- Odisha: Villagers Refuse To Cremate Dalit Woman’s Body
- Here’s What Farhan Akhtar Said On Karan Johar-MNS ‘Deal’ Over Ae Dil Hai Mushkil’s Release
- Government’s Diwali Gift to Central Government Employees, Pensioners
- Bigg Boss 10 26th October Review: This Episode Is All About Fights
- New Zealand Beat India By 19 Runs In Ranchi; Series Levelled At 2-2
- DND Toll-Free: Noida Toll Company Moves Supreme Court Against Allahabad High Court
- British PM Theresa May Says Kashmir Is A Matter For India, Pakistan To Sort Out
- J&K: Students Suffer As Schools Along LOC Forced To Shut Amid Firing
Additional Sessions Judge Daya Prakash allowed Kumar’s revision application on the ground that there was no living person whom the accused could be said to have impersonated.
The judge also observed that the in its chargesheet, the CBI mentioned that the complaint against Kumar was filed by an anonymous source. “In absence of any complaint of a living person of whom pretension has been made, the case of CBI falls,” the judge ruled.
The CBI argued that in addition to availing gift facility from a store, it had recovered two letters from his car, addressed to Kumar as OSD, CVC. The judge dismissed the argument, observing that “the case against the accused can be described at stage of ‘preparation’, not even reaching at the stage of attempt”.