UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Conman Sukesh gets 8-year jail term for posing as SC judge

Q1. In the judgment delivered by a Delhi magistrate in August 2026, convicting a serial offender for telephonically impersonating a judge of the Supreme Court in order to influence a bail matter, under how many distinct sections of the Indian Penal Code was he held guilty?

  • A. Two
  • B. Three
  • C. Five
  • D. Seven

Q2. Consider the following statements regarding three provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 1. Section 170 penalises a person who pretends to hold a particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold it, and does any act under colour of that office. 2. Section 189 penalises the holding out of a threat of injury to a public servant in order to induce him to do or forbear from doing any act connected with the exercise of his public functions. 3. Section 507 penalises criminal intimidation committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Section 170 penalises a person who pretends to hold a particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold it, and does any act under colour of that office.
  2. Section 189 penalises the holding out of a threat of injury to a public servant in order to induce him to do or forbear from doing any act connected with the exercise of his public functions.
  3. Section 507 penalises criminal intimidation committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 1 and 3 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q3. The sentence of eight years' rigorous imprisonment awarded in August 2026 for the 2017 telephone call impersonating a Supreme Court judge was pronounced by which one of the following?

  • A. An Additional Sessions Judge at the Rouse Avenue courts, Delhi
  • B. A Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at the Patiala House courts, Delhi
  • C. A designated MCOCA Special Judge at the Saket courts, Delhi
  • D. A Chief Judicial Magistrate at the Tis Hazari courts, Delhi

Q4. With reference to the August 2026 conviction of Sukesh Chandrashekar for posing as a judge of the Supreme Court, consider the following: 1. The sentence of eight years' rigorous imprisonment was awarded on 29 August 2026. 2. The offence consisted of telephone calls made on 28 April 2017 pressing a judicial officer to grant bail in another criminal case. 3. The accused used a regional accent while posing as a sitting judge of the Supreme Court during those calls. 4. The same judgment also convicted him of committing an organised crime under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. The sentence of eight years' rigorous imprisonment was awarded on 29 August 2026.
  2. The offence consisted of telephone calls made on 28 April 2017 pressing a judicial officer to grant bail in another criminal case.
  3. The accused used a regional accent while posing as a sitting judge of the Supreme Court during those calls.
  4. The same judgment also convicted him of committing an organised crime under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.
  • A. 1 and 4 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 3 only
  • C. 2, 3 and 4 only
  • D. 1, 2, 3 and 4

Q5. In the Delhi court's order of May 2026 directing framing of charges in the Rs 200-crore extortion case, the principal special enactment invoked in addition to the penal and information-technology provisions was:

  • A. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
  • B. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
  • C. The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
  • D. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Q6. Consider the following statements comparing the two proceedings against Sukesh Chandrashekar — the Rs 200-crore extortion case and the case of impersonating a Supreme Court judge: 1. Charges in the extortion case were ordered to be framed by an Additional Sessions Judge, whereas the impersonation case was decided by a magistrate. 2. The extortion case invoked provisions of the Information Technology Act and MCOCA in addition to penal provisions, whereas the impersonation conviction rested on penal provisions alone. 3. His wife Leena Paulose was arrayed as a co-accused in the 2017 impersonation case, while the film actor Jacqueline Fernandez figured in the extortion case. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Charges in the extortion case were ordered to be framed by an Additional Sessions Judge, whereas the impersonation case was decided by a magistrate.
  2. The extortion case invoked provisions of the Information Technology Act and MCOCA in addition to penal provisions, whereas the impersonation conviction rested on penal provisions alone.
  3. His wife Leena Paulose was arrayed as a co-accused in the 2017 impersonation case, while the film actor Jacqueline Fernandez figured in the extortion case.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1 and 2 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q7. Under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, a confession made by an accused to a police officer and recorded in writing or mechanically is admissible in trial only if it is recorded by an officer not below the rank of:

  • A. Inspector General of Police
  • B. Deputy Superintendent of Police
  • C. Superintendent of Police
  • D. Additional Director General of Police

Q8. With reference to the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, consider the following: 1. A 'continuing unlawful activity' must be a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, in respect of which more than one chargesheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years. 2. Where an organised crime results in the death of any person, the punishment is death or imprisonment for life, along with a minimum fine of one lakh rupees. 3. Where an organised crime does not result in death, the punishment is imprisonment for a term of not less than three years extending to seven years, along with a minimum fine of one lakh rupees. 4. Special Courts constituted under the Act function at the level of a Court of Session. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. A 'continuing unlawful activity' must be a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, in respect of which more than one chargesheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years.
  2. Where an organised crime results in the death of any person, the punishment is death or imprisonment for life, along with a minimum fine of one lakh rupees.
  3. Where an organised crime does not result in death, the punishment is imprisonment for a term of not less than three years extending to seven years, along with a minimum fine of one lakh rupees.
  4. Special Courts constituted under the Act function at the level of a Court of Session.
  • A. 1, 2 and 4
  • B. 1 and 3
  • C. 2 and 4 only
  • D. 1, 3 and 4

Q9. With reference to the strength of the Supreme Court of India as it stands in 2026, consider the following: 1. The sanctioned strength of the Court was raised from 34 to 38 judges. 2. The increase was first given effect through an Ordinance promulgated in May 2026, which was subsequently replaced by an Act passed by Parliament in August 2026. 3. The statute amended for this purpose was the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. 4. The amending Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

  1. The sanctioned strength of the Court was raised from 34 to 38 judges.
  2. The increase was first given effect through an Ordinance promulgated in May 2026, which was subsequently replaced by an Act passed by Parliament in August 2026.
  3. The statute amended for this purpose was the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
  4. The amending Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 2 and 3 only
  • C. 1 and 3 only
  • D. 4 only

Q10. With reference to the appointment of five new judges to the Supreme Court of India in June 2026, consider the following: 1. Following these appointments, the working strength of the Court rose to 37 judges. 2. The oath of office was administered to them by the Chief Justice of India. 3. All five of them were, without exception, serving Chief Justices of High Courts at the time of their elevation. 4. The number of judges of the Supreme Court, excluding the Chief Justice of India, is fixed by a parliamentary statute and not by the Constitution itself. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Following these appointments, the working strength of the Court rose to 37 judges.
  2. The oath of office was administered to them by the Chief Justice of India.
  3. All five of them were, without exception, serving Chief Justices of High Courts at the time of their elevation.
  4. The number of judges of the Supreme Court, excluding the Chief Justice of India, is fixed by a parliamentary statute and not by the Constitution itself.
  • A. 1, 2 and 3
  • B. 2, 3 and 4
  • C. 1, 2 and 4
  • D. 1 and 3 only

Q11. The charges of personating a public servant, extortion, cheating and criminal conspiracy ordered to be framed by a Delhi court in May 2026 against Sukesh Chandrashekar and eighteen others arose from a case investigated by which one of the following?

  • A. The Enforcement Directorate of the Ministry of Finance
  • B. The Central Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Personnel and Training
  • C. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • D. The Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police

Q12. Under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a person who dishonestly or fraudulently does any act referred to in Section 43 is liable to a fine which may extend to how many lakh rupees?

  • A. One
  • B. Two
  • C. Five
  • D. Ten