Section 13(1) of the Notary Act, 1952 clearly bars the act of taking cognizance of any offence against the Notary in exercise or purported exercise of his function under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by Central Government or State Government by general or special order. Therefore, filing of a complaint against a Notary of his function performed under the Act by upon an authorization of an officer of Central/State Government is mandatory requirement of law for institution of valid complaint as per provision under Section 13(1) is mandatory in nature.
12. At this stage, it would be expedient to notice the functions entrusted to the Notary under the Act of 1952. Section 8(1)(a) of the Act provides as under:-
8. Functions of notaries.- (1) A notary may do all or any of the following acts by virtue of his office, namely:-
(a) verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument;
(b) to (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx
13. Reverting to the facts of present case in the light of principle of law laid down in the above-stated Judgments and in view of above-stated legal analysis, it is quite vivid that in the present case the accused/petitioner is an advocate working as a Notary and authenticated the document in question under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 in performance of statutory duty conferred upon him by Act of 1952. The questioned authentication of agreement would clearly fall within the meaning of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act of 1952. Therefore, the bar under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1952 would squarely attract and far alleged offences against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of, except on the complaint filed in the manner indicated under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1952.
14. The Karnataka High Court in the matters of V. Ranga Ramu vs. State of Karnataka MANU/KA/0143/1999 : 1999 CRI. L.J. 561 and Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dinesh Chandra Sinha v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0353/2017 : 2017 CRI. L.J. 3015 has held that in absence of any complaint by the Officer authorised by Central Government or State Government regarding the duty of notary, the order taking cognizance is not proper and accused is entitled for discharge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 294 of 2017
Decided On: 13.05.2019
Rajkumar Mishra Vs. Gurjeet Kaur Bajwa
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Citation: 2019 SCC Online Chh 48
