CROWN PROSECUTOR Vs. RENGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In allhte material parts, the wording of Section 82(c), of theIndian Registration Act is identical with that of Sectio 205 of the Indian Penal Code. So long ago as 1867 it was held by Scotland, C.J., and collet, J., p. 18 (sic), in a case khaddar Rauvuthan and Ayyangava Ravuthan 4 M.H.C.R. 18 under Section 205, Indian Penal Code, that it was not enough to prove merely the assumption of a fictitious name. It is essential to prove further that the assumed name was used as a means of falsely representing another individual. I am bound by this decision and I follow it, the more willingly because with due respect I think it is undoubtedly right. The wording of Section 82(c) of the Registration Act is "whoever falsely personates another....". This is quite a different matter from saying "whoever falsely assumes a fictitious name."

(2.) In the present case so far as is known to the prosecution there is no such personas Valli Ammal, and all that the accused is prove to have done is that she assumed the name Valli Ammal. Since there is no such person as Valli Ammal. This view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 1922 (Ratnam Pillai, appellant) another decision which in terms is binding on me.

(3.) The petition is accordingly dismissed.