A couple of decades
ago, have seen people impersonate and write examinations [especially Arrears]
for their friends .. .. .. a classmate
of mine once sold his Typewriting (lower) Original for a pittance to another
friend [having the same name] – that person somehow could not pass TW and after
a few failed attempts, bought the Certificate of his namesake, submitted the
original and got a job – the lender had by that time passed Higher in style and
did not require the lower certificate. !!
Remember the
blockbuster ‘ 3 Idiots / Nanban / Snehithudu’, a film that distinctively
featured inventions ingenuously made.
When the two friends try finding
out the other colleague who was so innovative in their college, comes the turn
that a rich Estate owner had in fact utilized their servant to study in guise
and his son taking the credits. Impersonations
are nothing new in Cinema.
Way back in 1980
came the Rajnikant blockbuster ‘Billa’ – storyline featuring a mafia don, who
gets fatally wounded in an encounter. The
police plant a decoy, a villager impersonating the don and providing vital
clues ~ [though the film ran for many days, I always feel, that naming of the movie
after a cruel criminal was in bad
taste]. The film Kathi was about Jeevanandam,
a social activist fighting a MNC - a
small time thief swaps position bringing about some good results. In ‘Naan’ – an young student is caught
forging the signature for a friend, the events take an ugly turn, making him
turn a killer. On release, with none to
fall back, he decides to go to Chennai in pursuit of a life – the bus meets
with an accident – he picks up the certificate of a fellow passenger, joins medical college by changing his identity.
Well this is no cinema
review – but an interesting story of impersonation, portrayed in different
perspective by 2 news papers.
Indian Express,
Chennai edition reported that – after 20
years of legal battle to claim her right to employment which was fraudulently
taken away by an impersonator, R Parvathi finally got justice. Parvathi, who
had registered with the employment exchange at Thudiyalur in Coimbatore, was
called for an interview for a vacancy of Class IV employee in Pollachi. After
attending the interview, Pravathi thought she had not been selected and went to
the exchange to renew her employment card. However, officials said that she had
already been appointed in the Pollachi Commissioner’s office.
Smelling something
fishy, she found out that Pollachi councillor’s wife has impersonated her and
got the job which was due to her. Parvathi began knocking at the doors of
justice in 1996 by filing original application. It was only in 2009 that
Parvathi’s application was taken as writ petition and the Madras High Court
ruled in her favour after finding that the impersonator, who goes by the name
Parvathi, changed her father’s name to get the job which was due to the other
Parvathi.
Not only that,
there were several anomalies in service register, including that of overwriting
the initial. But then her misery did not end and the impersonator filed an
appeal in 2012. It was only in 2016 that she got relief when Justice S
Vaidyanathan ordered to provide suitable employment to R Parvathi. Judge
Vaidyanathan also ordered the municipality to recover the amount from the
impersonator as she cannot claim wages on such an alleged act. “The case
requires a proper investigation by law enforcement agency to book the culprits
who were responsible and involved in the acts of creating records and altering
data, thereby abetting impersonation,” Judge Vaidyanathan added.
Times of India
reported the same story, more from the imposter angle. It took 23 years and two judicial orders for state
agencies and the Pollachi municipality to end the fraudulent career of a woman
who brazenly impersonated another with the same name, bagged her job in the
municipality , changed her father's name, date of birth and educational
qualifications. Now that Parvathi's game is up, the Madras high court recently upheld a single judge order to discontinue her
`service' and recommended criminal action against the authorities for failure
to take action against her. It also ordered the authorities to recover the
salary that Parvathi received.
Parvathi took up
the post in Pollachi municipality in 1990, though another Parvathi, the
daughter of Rangam, was senior to her phoney namesake in the employment
exchange records and went through the selection process. The fraud came to
light in 1993, when the real Parvathi went to employment exchange to renew her
seniority. Parvathi was informed that she was already working in the
municipality. She then found that a woman was impersonating her in the office.
On being informed that the process could not done because she was already
working in the municipality , she checked and found that a woman was
impersonating her in the office. She lodged a complaint with officials but,
when they failed to take action, she filed a writ petition in the high court.
In his order, the
single judge said that though her age was beyond the eligible limit for the
Class IV job -which is between 18 and 30 years -the authorities allowed her to
take up the post without any evidence. They accepted as proof a mere
declaration and medical certificate. She managed to get the date of birth
mentioned in the service register erased and altered to show that she was born
in 1960 and had her educational qualifications changed to show that she was
literate. Her father's name was noted as “Rengan“ when in the sponsorship
letter of the employment exchange, of 1990
had the fraudulent candidate's husband's name, Palanisamy . “Therefore, there
is absolutely no possibility to say that the entries have been inadvertently
made in the service register. This court is of the view that Parvathi had
impersonated the real Parvathi, and [she is] not entitled to continue in
service,“ he said.
Pointing out that
the genuine Parvathi had been deprived of her employment, and she had been
litigating since 1997, the single judge said she should be given a suitable job
within six weeks. But the imposter would not give up. She filed an appeal
against the ruling. Dismissing her appeal, a division bench of Justice R Sudhakar
and Justice S Vaidyanathan said, “An impersonator cannot claim wages on the
alleged act. The case requires proper investigation by law enforcement agencies
to book culprits who are responsible [for] creating records, altering data,
etc, thereby abetting impersonation.”
Section
416 in The Indian Penal Code : Cheating by personation.—A person is said to
“cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or
by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or
any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. According to Sec 419 : Punishment for cheating by
personation.—Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
16th Apr
2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment