But Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar came in for disapproval from Nanda’s counsel for his observation that Nanda had “hijacked the trial” with his money power. Defence counsel Ramesh Gupta also termed the conviction an outcome of “media trial”.

Public prosecutor Rajeev Mohan initiated Wednesday’s argument on quantum of punishment based on the “theory of deterrent punishment” and sought maximum punishment of 10 years in jail for Nanda. Mohan argued the court should deliver “exemplary” punishment for Nanda’s attempt to buy out justice.

He said the fact that Nanda sped off even as the injured victims lay there was grave enough to attract stringent punishment.

Rebutting his contentions, Nanda’s counsel Ramesh Gupta said adverse media coverage played a key role in forming an opinion against his client. He said despite the vital role it plays in a democratic set-up, the media could not be allowed to cross its limits and interfere with administration of justice.

“Justice is at stake, and it is for judges to save it from getting influenced due to the media,” Gupta said.

In his conviction order yesterday, ASJ Vinod Kumar had dealt extensively on threats to the criminal justice system by the high and mighty. He noted that the present trial is an example of this growing trend.

The 87-page judgment also referred to the sting operation conducted on collusion between the prosecution and defence counsels — I U Khan and R K Anand, respectively.

But Nanda’s counsel said the reference was “not proper”, as the High Court order had nothing to do with the trial court’s verdict. Contending that Nanda was not served a notice or sought explanation by either trial court or the High Court about the collusion, Gupta said its mention in the court’s order was not appropriate. “Why should the High Court verdict in a different matter should find mention in my case as I was never made an accused in the sting case?”

Pointing to his client’s clean record, Gupta referred to affidavits by an NGO’s chairman and a volunteer who had praised Nanda for his work in Tihar Jail by conducting English and computer classes for inmates when he was in custody in 1999. Asking for a lenient approach owing to the convict’s age — Nanda was 21 at the time — Gupta chose a middle path and sought his release either on probation, or sentencing him to a period already undergone during trial.

Nanda was in custody for about nine months following his arrest in 1999.