Kerala High Court Dismisses Case Against Elderly Notary Over Alleged Forgery
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 72-year-old lawyer and notary public. The case involved allegations of attesting a fabricated consent letter. Justice C Pratheep Kumar set aside the proceedings, citing Section 13 of the Notaries Act.
Court Cites Mandatory Complaint Requirement
Justice Kumar ruled that the prosecution violated Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act. This section states that no court can take cognisance of an offence committed by a notary in their official functions without a written complaint from an officer authorised by the central or state government.
The court emphasised that this requirement is mandatory. It referred to a previous case, Jolsna E P v. State of Kerala, where a coordinate bench had affirmed this legal position.
The order explained that Section 8 of the Act authorises a notary to verify, authenticate, certify, or attest documents. At the time of attestation, a notary may not know the document's genuineness or future consequences.
"If no such protection is granted to a notary, it will be difficult for them to perform their acts as contemplated," the court noted, highlighting the need for legal safeguards.
Background of the Allegations
The case originated from allegations that two accused persons, with the petitioner's help, created a fabricated consent letter. They purportedly executed this letter in the name of the de facto complainant.
The accused then presented this document to the Kozhikode Corporation. They obtained a license for operating a cool bar and bakery based on this forged letter.
Authorities had charged the petitioner and others under several sections of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 465: Forgery
- Section 468: Forgery for the purpose of cheating
- Section 471: Using a forged document as genuine
The petitioner, a practising lawyer and notary public, approached the High Court seeking to quash all further proceedings. His counsel argued that the mandate of Section 13 of the Notaries Act must be complied with for any prosecution.
Legal Implications and Precedent
The court's decision reinforces the protective framework for notaries under Indian law. It clarifies that notaries cannot be prosecuted arbitrarily for offences related to their official duties.
Justice Kumar's order stated: "From the above provision, it is clear that for taking cognisance of any offence committed by a notary in exercise of his functions under the Notaries Act, a complaint made by an officer authorised by the government concerned is necessary."
This ruling aligns with the earlier precedent set in the Jolsna E P case. The coordinate bench had held that compliance with Section 13 is essential for prosecuting a notary public.
The court also noted Clause 2 of Section 13, which specifies that only a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class can try offences under the Notaries Act.
By quashing the proceedings, the Kerala High Court has provided significant relief to the elderly lawyer. It underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures when alleging misconduct by notaries.
