IMPERSONATION AS AN OFFENCE

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted to theUNIVERSITY FIVE YEAR LAW COLLEGE

UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHANJAIPUR

(2011)

Supervised by: Submitted by :

Ms. RITUJA SHARMA AJIT YADAVFaculty Lecturer B.A.,LL.B(HONS.) VI Semester

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that AJIT YADAV, student of B.A LL.B VI

Semester, Uviversity Five Year Law College University of

Rajasthan, Jaipur has submitted the project entitled

"IMPERSONATION AS AN OFFENCE" under my supervision and

guidance.

It is further certified that the candidate has done a sincere

efforts in this work on the topic mentioned above.

Ms. Rituja Sharma

Supervisor

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have written this presentation entitled "

IMPERSONATION AS AN OFFENCE " under the supervision

of Ms. Rituja Sharma, Faculty Lecturer, University Five

Year Law College, Jaipur.

I find no words to express my sense of gratitude for

Ms. Rituja Sharma, Faculty lecturer for providing the

necessary guidance and constant encouragement at

every step of her endeavour. The pains taken by her in

the scrutiny of the rough draft as well her valuable

suggestions to plug the loopholes therein have not only

helped immensely in making this work see the light of the

day, but above all, have helped in developing an

analytical approach to this work.

I am grateful and thankful to Prof. Mridul Srivastava,

Director of University Five Year Law College, University of

Rajasthan, Jaipur for her cooperation and guidance.

Further I am grateful to my learned teachers for their

academic patronage and persistent encouragement

extended to me.

I am highly indebted to the office and Library Staff of

the University Five Year Law College, University of

Rajasthan, Jaipur for the support and cooperation

extended by them from time to time.

I cannot conclude with recording my gratefulness to

my parents, family members and friends for the

assistance received from them in the preparation of this

dissertation for which I am indebted to them.

AJIT YADAV.Student of B.A.,LLB.

(Hons.) Fifth SemesterUFYLC

University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

Roll No. 007

LIST OF CONTENTS

Certificate.................................................................................. i. Acknowledgement.....................................................................ii.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction…………………………………………………….1. Research methodology………………………………………...2. Hypothesis……………………………………………………..2.

CHAPTER 2 Cheating by personation ……………..……………………….. 3.

CHAPTER 3

3.1.Enjoyment another’s benefit ……………………………….4. 3.2.Personation by witness……………………………………...4. 3.3.Personation before public service commission……………..4. 3.4.Personation before a public servant…………………………5. 3.5.False representation as to caste……………………………..5. 3.6.Accused professing to be a bachelor………………………..6.

CHAPTER 4 4.0. Punishment for cheating by personation…………………...7.

CHAPTER 5 5.1.Police impersonation……………………………………….8.

5.2. Impersonations class as the offence……………………….8.

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion………………………………………………..……..10. Table of cases…………………………………………………...11.

Bibliography & Webliography

CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘impersonation’ means ‘pretending1 to be another person’.

An impersonator is someone who imitates or copies the behavior or actions of another. There are many reasons for someone to be an impersonator, some common ones being as follows:

Legally : An entertainer impersonates a celebrity2, generally for entertainment, and makes fun of their recent scandals or known behavior patterns. Especially popular objects of impersonation are Elvis, Abraham Lincoln, and Lenin. Entertainers who impersonate multiple celebrities as part of their act, can be sorted into impressionists and celebrity impersonators.

Illegally : As part of a criminal act such as identity theft. This is usually where the criminal is trying to assume the identity of another, in order to commit fraud, such as accessing confidential3 information, or to gain property not belonging to them. Also known as social engineering and impostors.

Political decoy, used as a form of protection for political and military figures. This involves an impersonator who is employed (or forced) to perform during public appearances, to mislead observers. This is also legal.

Causing people to fight, or dislike each other for social, business or political gain.

1 Pretending means The act of giving a false appearance.2 Celebrity means A widely known person.3 Confidential means The level of official classification for documents next above restricted and below secret; available only to persons authorized to see documents so classified.

1.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Researcher has used doctrinal method while dealing with the research project related to “Impersonation as an offence”.

1.2 HYPOTHESIS :- Impersonating a person (living or dead) by way of switching identity or documents must be a punishable offence.

CHAPTER-2

Cheating by personation :-- Under Section 416 of Indian Penal Code …if a person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting4 one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

This section (416) defines cheating by personation which is one of the ways in which the offence of cheating is committed. It says that a person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be some other person which he is not, or by knowingly substituting one person for another person, or representing that he is a person other than he really is. This explanation attached to the section states that the offence of cheating by personation is committed whether the individual personated is a real person or an imaginary5 person. The first illustration clarifies that it is not necessary to change one’s name to commit this offence and if there is any other person who also has the same name as that of the accused and the accused cheats pretending to be that other person, he commits this offence. The second illustration shows that this offence can be committed even by pretending to be some other such person who is dead.The section requires that the offender must cheat. He must cheat by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he is some other person than he really is, or representing that any other person is some other person than he really is. The explanation says that this offence is committed both when the individual personated is a real person and when the individual personated is an imaginary person.

The law doesn’t punish mere personation because it is no consequence to the society at all. For instance, where A buys a kilogram of potato at a vegetable market and on being asked about his name as B. It is personation but not a punishable one. A personation is punishable only when cheats6 by it, and so this definition under section 416.

4 Substituting means Act or speak as a replacement.5 The word imaginary tends to Not based on fact; unreal.6 Cheat means Defeat someone through trickery or deceit.

CHAPTER-3

In the case of State v. Padam Singh7 the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a person cannot be convicted8 merely because he secured an employment by giving out a fictitious name for himself but it must also be proved that he would not have got that job had he disclosed his true identity.

3.1.Enjoyment another’s benefit :- In re Matameswar Rao9 case, where the accused was found using a railway season ticket issued in the name of another person by pretending to be that other person, he was held guilty of committing cheating by personation.

3.2.Personation by witness :- In the case of Prema Bhika v. Emperor10, The Bombay High Court was of the view that a witness who gave false evidence in the name of another person should be charged with giving false evidence under section 193 of the Code and not cheating by personation.

3.3.Personation before public service commission :- In case of Sushil kumar Dutta v. State11, where the accused, who did not belong to the scheduled caste category, took the Indian Administrative Service examination as a scheduled caste candidate and succeeded in it and in the interview and got an appointment on the basis of false representation, he was held guilty of committing cheating by personation. In another case of In re K. Rama Rao12 , where the accused, one Mr. K. Rama Rao who was an overseer not possessing an engineering degree, falsely represented that he was Mr. K. Rama Rao, an engineering graduate of Mysore University and induced the Public Service Commission to select him for a government job in appropriate cadre, it was held that he had committed cheating by presonation.

7 1973 Cr.LJ877(MP).8 Convicted means (law) find or declare guilty.9 1957Cr.LJ44.10 (1863) 1 Bom HC89.11 1985 Cr.LJ1948(Cal)12 1960 Cr.LJ 1181.

3.4.Personation before a public servant :- In case of Khairati ram v. State13, where the accused was not the payee mentioned in some money orders but falsely represented before the postman that he was the payee and produced false identity card also for identification and thus induced the postman to pay him the amounts and he also signed in the money order as payee, it was held that he was guilty of cheating by personation. But in another case Jagat Narayan v. State14, where the accused under authorization from his brother who was the payee of a money order, went to the post office, signed in the name of his brother and received the money, he could not be held guilty of cheating by personation as there was no dishonest intention on his part.In case of Ram Jas v. State15, an accused, by merely inducing an Oath Commissioner, by wrongful identification, to attest an affidavit does not commit cheating by personation as the act done by the Oath Commissioner of attesting the affidavit does not cause or is not likely to cause any damage or harm to him in body, mind, reputation or property.

3.5.False representation as to caste :- In case of Kshitish Chandra Chakrabarti v. Emperor16, the accused, a Barna Brahmin, falsely represented to the mother of a girl that he was a Barendra Brahmin and thus induced the mother of the girl to get her married to him which she would not have agreed to had he disclosed his true caste, it was held that the accused was guilty of cheating by personation. In another case Mohin Chunder Sil v. Emperor17, the accused falsely represented to a man that a girl of low caste was a Brahmin and thus induced him to pay to the accused some money as a consideration for marriage of the man’s brother with the girl, he was held guilty of committing cheating by personation.

13 1972 Cr.LJ 254(Del).14 A.I.R. 1967 All. 123.15 AIR 1974 SC 184.16 1937 Cr.LJ 577 (Cal).17 (1871) 16 WR (Cr)42.

3.6.Accused professing to be a bachelor :------ In case of M.N.A.Achar v. D.L.Rajagopal18, the accused dishonestly induced the complainant as well as his daughter to agree to her marriage with him by professing to be a bachelor which he was not is cheating by personation. It is not correct to say that simply because the accused did not change his name on any occasion or remained the very same person, although assumed a different status or character according to his representation, this offence could not be committed.

18 1977 Cr.LJ NOC 228(Kar).

CHAPTER-4

Punishment for cheating by personation :-- Section 419 provides punishment for cheating by personation. The section states whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

In case of YashPal Mittal v. State19, The Supreme Court ruled that where the contents of the charge clearly state that the main object of a criminal conspiracy was to commit cheating by personation, and the accused was also charged under section 419 along with other charges, it does not matter if contents of the charge do not mention cheating by personation specifically and it would not mean that the charge of cheating simplicitor under section 417 has been brought against him.

The offence under this section is cognizable20, bailable and compoundable21 when permitted by the court trying the case and is triable22 by any magistrate.

19 AIR 1979 SC 2433.20 Cognizable means Capable of being known.21 Compoundable means Make more intense, stronger, or more marked.22 Triable means Put on trial or hear a case and sit as the judge at the trial of.

CHAPTER-5

5.1.Police impersonation :---- Police impersonation is an act of falsely portraying oneself as a member of the police, for the purpose of deception. In the vast majority of countries the practice is illegal and carries a custodial sentence.

Impersonating a police officer is sometimes committed in order to assert police-like authority in order to commit a crime. Posing as a police officer enables the offender to legitimize the appearance of an illegal act, such as: burglary23, making a traffic stop, or detaining24.

Dressing up as a police officer in costume, or pretending to be a police officer for the purpose of play or a harmless prank toward an acquaintance is generally not considered a crime, provided that those involved recognize the imposter is not a real police officer, and the imposter is not trying to deceive those involved into thinking he/she is.

5.2.The following impersonations class as the offence:

Verbal indentification : The imposter announces to the unsuspecting victim that they are a police officer.

Fake Badge or Warrant card : The imposter, though not in any special clothes, displays a police-like badge25 or identification card to the victim. Sometimes a real police officer will not even be able to differentiate between the real and fake badge, as some duplicates are very, if not exactly alike.

Fake uniform : The imposter wears a uniform that looks very much like that of a police officer.

Fake vehicle : The imposter places lights, decals, or other equipment on a personal vehicle to disguise it as a police car and enable the offender to make arrests or traffic stops.

23 Burglary means Entering a building, vehicle, or other enclosure unlawfully with intent to commit a felony or to steal valuable property.24 Detaining means Cause to be slowed down or delayed.25 Badge means An emblem (a small piece of plastic, cloth or metal) that signifies your status (rank, membership, affiliation etc.).

Much of the equipment described above is available for purchase to the general public, thereby enabling imposters to obtain the necessary materials to commit such a crime. While the equipment will not bear the name of a specific law enforcement agency, the unsuspecting victim may not notice the difference.

CHAPTER-6

CONCLUSION :-- The law doesn’t punish mere personation because it is no consequence to the society at all. This offence is committed both when the individual personated is a real person and when the individual personated is an imaginary person.

The identity thief impersonates someone else in order to conceal their own true identity. Examples might be illegal immigrants, people hiding from creditors or other individuals, or those who simply want to become "anonymous" for personal reasons. Unlike identity theft used to obtain credit which usually comes to light when the debts mount, concealment may continue indefinitely without being detected, particularly if the identity thief is able to obtain false credentials in order to pass various authentication tests in everyday life. The law doesn’t punish mere personation because it is no consequence to the society at all. This offence is committed both when the individual personated is a real person and when the individual personated is an imaginary person.

Surveys in the USA from 2003 to 2006 showed a decrease in the total number of victims and a decrease in the total value of identity fraud from US$47.6 billion in 2003 to $15.6 billion in 2006. The average fraud per person decreased from $4,789 in 2003 to $1,882 in 2006.

Table of Cases

1. State v. Padam Singh, 1973 Cr.LJ 877(MP).2. In re Matameswar Rao, 1957 Cr.LJ 44.3. Prema Bhika v. Emperor, (1863) 1 Bom. HC 89.4. Sushil Kumar Dutta v. State, 1985 CrLJ 1948(Cal).5. In re K.Rama Rao, 1960 CrLJ 1181.6. Khairati Ram v. State, 1972 CrLJ 254 (Del).7. Jagat Narayan v. State, A.I.R.1967 All 123.8. Ram Jas v. State, AIR 1974 SC 184.9. Kshitish Chandra Chakarbarti v. Emp., 1937 CrLJ 577(Cal).10.Mohim Chunder Sil v. Emp., (1871) 16 WR(Cr)42.11.M.N.A.Achar v. D.L.Rajagopal, 1977 CrLJ NOC 228(kar).12.Yashpal Mittal v. State, AIR 1979 sc 2433.

Bibliography and Webliography

1. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE by T.BHATTACHARYA. 2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE by RATANLAL DHIRAJLAL.3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE by ABHINAV MISHRA.

  

1. lawandotherthings.blogspot.com. 2. books.google.co.in.