Impersonation offence complete on entering exam hall with another student’s admit card, Gujarat HC holds; accused granted probation

The applicants were prosecuted in connection with an examination impersonation incident.

Applicant No. 2, Uttam Gagu Bakutra, allegedly entered the examination hall carrying the admit card of Applicant No. 1, Ramesh Gagu Bakutra, and represented himself as Ramesh.

He was identified and apprehended before commencing the examination or writing on the answer sheet.

The prosecution examined, inter alia, the Building Conductor and Block Supervisor, who supported the identification and impersonation case.

The trial court convicted both applicants under Section 419 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced each to one year’s simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000.

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The applicants thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The High Court suspended the sentence during the pendency of the revision, and the applicants remained on bail without any reported antecedents or breach of conditions.

Whether Applicant No. 2’s conduct amounted to completed “cheating by personation” under Sections 416 and 419 of the IPC, or merely an unsuccessful attempt punishable under Section 511 of the IPC.

Whether Applicant No. 1, who was not present in the examination hall, was liable under Section 114 of the IPC or only for prior abetment under Section 109 of the IPC.

Whether, having regard to the nature of the offence, the applicants’ age, conduct, social circumstances, and absence of antecedents, they were entitled to the benefit of probation under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Section 419 of the IPC prescribes punishment for cheating by personation and requires proof of the ingredients of Section 416, namely, pretending to be another person, knowingly substituting oneself for another, or representing oneself as a person other than oneself, coupled with deception or inducement constituting cheating under Section 415.

The Court distinguished completed cheating by personation from an attempt under Section 511, holding that the offence is complete once the accused, by false personation, enters the examination process and represents himself as the candidate named in the admit card.

Section 114 applies where the abettor is present when the offence is committed, whereas prior or pre-commission abetment attracts Section 109.

The Court relied on Ram Jas v. State of U.P. , (1970) 2 SCC 740, regarding the requirement that the person alleged to have been cheated must be identified in relation to the charge; State of Gujarat v. Khatubhai Limbabhai Pagi , 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 15849, on the requirement of presence for Section 114; and Lakhvir Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab , Neutral Citation 2021 SC 27, while considering probation.

Sections 3, 4 and 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act permit release on probation where the statutory requirements and circumstances of the offender justify such relief.

The Court found that Applicant No. 2 had knowingly substituted himself for Applicant No. 1, entered the examination hall with Applicant No. 1’s admit card, and represented himself as the named candidate.

These acts completed the personation contemplated by Section 416, even though he was detected before receiving an answer sheet or writing the examination; the absence of a completed examination or recovered answer sheet did not reduce the conduct to a mere attempt.

The Block Supervisor and Building Conductor were responsible for verifying candidates’ identities and maintaining the integrity of the examination, and the impersonation directly interfered with that process.

As Applicant No. 1 was not present when the offence was committed, the statutory requirement for Section 114 was absent.

However, his act of handing over the admit card and facilitating Applicant No. 2’s impersonation established prior abetment, warranting conviction under Section 109.

Given that Section 419 carries a maximum sentence of three years, the applicants’ young age at the time of the incident, clean record, satisfactory conduct over the intervening years, social rehabilitation, and favourable Probation Officer’s report justified probation instead of imprisonment and fine.

Applicant No. 2, Uttam Gagu Bakutra, was held guilty under Section 419 of the IPC, while Applicant No. 1, Ramesh Gagu Bakutra, was held guilty under Section 109 instead of Section 114.

The conviction was modified accordingly, while the applicants’ sentence and fine were replaced by release on probation.

Both applicants were directed to remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer, Kutch, for one year from the date of judgment, refrain from illegal activities, furnish details of their permanent residence, and execute bonds without sureties undertaking to comply with the conditions.

The revision was disposed of in those terms, and the record was directed to be returned to the concerned courts.