The magistrate was conducting judicial probe in the 2006 alleged fake encounter of Ramnarayan Gupta alias Lakhan Bhaiyya, an alleged Chhota Rajan gang member.
In July 2010, the disciplinary committee found Suryavanshi guilty and as a punishment had stopped his increment for two years.
Dhiraj Mirajkar, advocate for Suryavanshi, argued that there had been misunderstanding in the entire episode.
Suryavanshi had telephoned assistant public prosecutor Chandrakant Patil asking him for a copy of the report prepared by the magistrate. Patil, who was in the magistrate’s chamber at that time, put the phone on loudspeaker and what Suryavanshi said was misconstrued because of disruption in the network.
Mirajkar said: “Suryavanshi had told the prosecutor, ‘Madam ni report dilya, tya report mule aamcha vatola zala.
Madam has submitted the report because of which we are in trouble)’.” “However, the magistrate, who overheard the conversation, thought he said ‘madam cha vatola hoil. (Madam will be in trouble)’,” added Mirajkar.