ORDER
1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned I ACCM, Bangalore City, taking cognizance of the offences and directing issue of process to this petitioner along with other accused persons. The petitioner is one of the accused persons in all these cases. Notice of these petitions was served on the learned S.P.P.
2. Heard.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Advocate and notary public and the Court has committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence and directing issue of process to this petitioner. He also further submitted that the FIR does not disclose any offence said to have been committed by ibis petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have issued summons to this petitioner. In support of his argument, he also drew my attention to Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’). The learned S.P.P. fairly and rightly submitted that these petitions will have to be allowed in favour of the petitioner as the Courts could not have taken cognizance of the offence as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the police have arrested some of the accused persons and seized documents said to be the affidavit signed by the notary public. It is also stated that the names and addresses of the deponents were not mentioned and those columns were left blank. The police lodged the FIR on the basis that those accused persons have forged the signature and seal of the notary public and thereby they committed the offences. During the course of investigation, the police has come to the conclusion that this petitioner being notary public affixed his signature in those documents for using it to be produced before the RTO to obtain licence by the applicants. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and directed to issue process to all the accused persons named therein, including this petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order has approached this Court.
5. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a notary appointed under the Act, and he has been working as a notary. Even in the complaint also, it is specifically mentioned that the charge-sheet also mentions that the petitioner had signed the affidavit as notary public. Under those circumstances, he is governed by Section 13 of the Act. With this background, it is necessary to refer to Section 13 of the Act which reads:
“Cognizance of offence,–(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise of purported
exercise of his functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf.
No Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act”.
In this case admittedly, the petitioner is a notary appointed under the Act. The allegations also undisputedly are in the exercise or purported exercise of the offences under the Act but there is no written complaint by any officer who is authorised by the Central Government or State Government either by general or special order, empowering to file the complaint. The complaint came to be filed by the police officer. There is nothing to indicate -that he was either by general or special order authorised by the Central or State Government to file such complaint. It may also be mentioned here that as can be seen from the FIR, the case was registered against the other accused persons alleging that the signature and seal of the petitioner were forged by the other accused persons but while filing the charge-sheet only, the name of the petitioner was included. From this it is apparently clear that the complaint was filed against this petitioner by an unauthorised person and in contravention of Section 13 of the Act.
6. In the result therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
All the petitions are allowed. The proceedings initiated as far as this petitioner is concerned and the issuance of notice to appear before the Court are quashed. The petitioner is discharged in all these cases.