ORDER : PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl. Appeal No. 88 of 2019 confirming the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi in C.C. No. 100 of 2011 and allow the above criminal revision case. 1. Challenging the order dated 16.11.2021 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 88 of 2019 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the order dated 02.08.2019 passed in C.C. No. 100 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, this criminal revision case has been filed. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner Ramasamy had impersonated himself as his brother Subban and obtained employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as lineman and continued to work in the name of his brother Subban and cheated the Tamil Nadu Electricity Department. Hence, the respondent police prosecuted the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined six witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and filed fifteen documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On consideration of the prosecution evidence and documents, the trial Court found the guilt of the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 419 & 420 IPC and imposed a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A. No. 88 of 2019 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, after considering the impugned judgment and reappraising the evidence, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the criminal appeal. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred this criminal revision case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the prosecution evidence properly and based its conviction upon depositions of PW-1 to PW-3, who are hearsay witnesses and their evidence is not enough to find guilt of the revision petitioner. Further, the remaining witnesses PW-4 to PW-6 are official witnesses and their evidence also is not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty for the offences charged against him. Further, the remaining witnesses PW-4 to PW-6 are official witnesses and their evidence also is not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty for the offences charged against him. The ingredients of Sections 419 and 420 IPC have not been made out and the entire materials placed by the prosecution did not prove the charge against the revision petitioner. The trial Court and the appellate Court wrongly relied upon the report of the departmental proceedings Ex.P12, it cannot be relied upon to find guilty in a criminal trial and thus, reiterated the grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and pleaded to set aside the order of conviction and sentence and to allow the criminal revision case. 5. The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the prosecution proved the offence by clear evidence and it is not disputed that Subban died on 26.03.1993 and this petitioner is the brother of Subban and appointment order was issued to Subban in the year 1995. This revision petitioner impersonated himself as Subban and joined duty in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Department. This fact was ascertained by the Vigilance report. In this regard, this petitioner also admitted his fault and after the departmental enquiry, he was removed from service and there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court and thus, pleaded to dismiss the criminal revision case. 6. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the parties. 7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that this is a case of impersonation and obtained employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and continued to work in the name of another person. The revision petitioner Ramasamy and the deceased Subban are brothers. The charge against the revision petitioner Ramasamy is that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued appointment order to his brother Subban in the year 1995 and the revision petitioner Ramasamy had impersonated himself as Subban and obtained employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a lineman on 19.12.1995 in The Nilgiris, Electricity Division, Coonoor, Edapalli Office and he continued to work as Assistant in the said office knowing fully well that he is not Subban and the employment order was issued to his brother Subban. This fact came to the knowledge of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 03.03.2009. On enquiry, the revision petitioner admitted his guilt and gave his apology in writing. Thus, he had been working from 19.12.1995 to 03.03.2009 in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as Subban. In pursuance of the complaint given by the Executive Engineer before the respondent police, a case has been registered in Crime No. 82 of 2009 by the respondent police under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and after investigation, final report has been filed. 8. Further, I have gone through the prosecution witnesses on record. Nagappan PW-1, who is working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Seyur South Division as a Foreman, deposed that on enquiry, he came to know that the revision petitioner name is not Subban, his name is Ramasamy, he was working in the name of Subban. Sathish PW-2, Assistant Executive Engineer, deposed that the revision petitioner worked as lineman at Seyur Electricity Board and on vigilance complaint, enquiry has been conducted, thereafter, he came to know that the revision petitioner's name is Ramasamy and his brother name is Subban and also came to know that Subban died on 26.03.1993 and this revision petitioner was working in the name of Subban. Thiruvenkatasamy PW-3, Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, deposed that at the time of incident, Seyur Division was under his control and Subban and Ramasamy are brothers. Both worked as contracted labourers at the Electricity Board for several years. Upon seniority, appointment order was issued to Subban in the year 1995 but Subban died on 26.07.1993. By using the appointment order of Subban, this revision petitioner Ramasamy joined duty on 19.12.1995 by impersonating himself as Subban. This fact has been ascertained by the Vigilance report. Thereafter, enquriy has been conducted and complaint also given. Jayabalan PW-4, Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 03.03.2009, he received a complaint from Tiruppur Division, Executive Engineer, Venkadasamy, and on receiving the complaint, he registered the FIR in Crime No. 82 of 2009 under Sections 419 & 420 IPC. The complaint Ex.P1 and FIR Ex.P2. Mohanraj PW-5, Inspector of police deposed that while working as Inspector of Police at Avinasi, he conducted investigation in the case registered in Crime No. 82 of 2009 for the offence under sections 419 & 420 IPC, after that, he was transferred. The complaint Ex.P1 and FIR Ex.P2. Mohanraj PW-5, Inspector of police deposed that while working as Inspector of Police at Avinasi, he conducted investigation in the case registered in Crime No. 82 of 2009 for the offence under sections 419 & 420 IPC, after that, he was transferred. Thereafter, Kaliannan PW-6 continued the investigation and filed the final report. 9. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 established the fact that the revision petitioner is not Subban and his name is Ramasamy. Further, the document Ex.P3 death certificate of Subban evidenced the fact that he died on 26.03.1993 and the appointment order was issued for Subban, it is evidenced by Ex.P4. Further, Subban and Ramasamy are living separately and having separate family cards Ex.P6 & Ex.P8. The letter written by the revision petitioner to the Executive Engineer seeking apology Ex.P11 corroborated the prosecution evidence and the enquiry report Ex.P12 also supported the prosecution charge. The revision petitioner in the name of Subban received salary from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Department, it is evidenced by Ex.P15 (salary particulars). The above evidence and documents have established and proved the charge against the revision petitioner that he had impersonated himself as Subban and obtained employment in the Electricity Department as a lineman on 19.12.1995 in The Nilgiris Electricity Division, Coonoor, Edapalli Office and he continued to work as Assistant in the said office knowing fully well that he is not a Subban. Therefore, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution as well as no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and no merit in the criminal revision case. 10. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed by confirming the order dated 16.11.2021 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 88 of 2019 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and the order dated 02.08.2019 passed in C.C. No. 100 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.