IMPERSONATION AS AN

OFFENCE
A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted to the
UNIVERSITY FIVE YEAR LAW COLLEGE
UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR

(2011)

Supervised by: Submitted by :

Ms. RITUJA SHARMA AJIT YADAV

Faculty 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 Semester
UFYLC
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

State v. Padam Singh, 1973 Cr.LJ 877(MP).

1. In re Matameswar Rao, 1957 Cr.LJ 44.
2. Prema Bhika v. Emperor, (1863) 1 Bom. HC 89.
3. Sushil Kumar Dutta v. State, 1985 CrLJ 1948(Cal).
4. In re K.Rama Rao, 1960 CrLJ 1181.
5. Khairati Ram v. State, 1972 CrLJ 254 (Del).
6. Jagat Narayan v. State, A.I.R.1967 All 123.
7. Ram Jas v. State, AIR 1974 SC 184.
8. Kshitish Chandra Chakarbarti v. Emp., 1937 CrLJ 577(Cal).
9. Mohim Chunder Sil v. Emp., (1871) 16 WR(Cr)42.
10.M.N.A.Achar v. D.L.Rajagopal, 1977 CrLJ NOC 228(kar).
11.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.