Emperor Vs. Rangammal and anr.

- orderburn, j.1. in all the material parts, the wording of section 82(c), eegistration act, is identical with that of section 205, i.p.c. so long ago as 1867 it was held by scotland, c.j. and collett, j., in kadar ravuttan v. ayangana ravuttan (1868) 4 mhcr 18 under section 205, i.p.c., that it was not enough to prove merely the assumption of a fictitious name. it is essential to prove further that the as : sumed 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), registration act, is 'whoever falsely personates another....' this is quite a different matter from saying 'whoever falsely assumes a fictitious name.' in the present case so far as is known to the prosecution, there is no such person as valliammal, and all that the accused is proved to have done is that she assumed the name valli ammal. since there is no such person as valli ammal, the accused has not personated valli ammal. this view has been taken by a bench of this court in criminal appeal no. 1930 of 1922 (ratnam pillai, appellant), another decision, which in terms is binding on me. the petition is accordingly dismissed.